Monday, Oct. 23, 2006 | 7:34 a.m.
Bret Whipple Regents Chairman
Linda Howard Regents Vice Chairwoman
Mark Alden
First elected in 1994, District 4: Henderson. Up for re-election Nov. 7. Job: CPA specializing in legal cases. Degree: Bachelor's degree in accounting, UNR, 1971. Eye on Higher Office: No. Main Concern: Promoting Nevada State College.
Stavros Anthony
First elected in 2002, District 12: West Las Vegas. Job: Metro Police captain. Degree: PhD in sociology, UNLV, 1999. Eye on Higher Office: Applied for Henderson police chief. Main Concern: Tried to ban rap music from campus because he believed it promoted violence, and tried to get regents to come out against initiative to legalize marijuana.
Jill Derby
First elected in 1988, District 9, Carson City/rural areas. Job: Former anthropology professor, consultant to other governing boards. Degree: PhD in anthropology, University of California Davis, 1988. Eye on Higher Office: Running for Congress. Main Concern: Research initiatives, academics and student success.
Thalia Dondero
First elected in 1996, District 3: Paradise Valley. Job: Retired Clark County commissioner. Degree: High school. Former Office: 20 years on the Clark County Commission. Main Concern: Land-use issues, including water rights and environmental concerns.
Dorothy Gallagher
First elected in 1980, District 8: Rural counties (Gallagher took four-year hiatus between 2000 and 2004). Job: Hospital management, rancher, real estate developer. Degree: Bachelor's in zoology, UNR, 1947. Eye on Higher Office: None, except she is the only regent to boss the chancellor around. Main Concern: What's best for the whole state.
Jason Geddes
Appointed in August 2006, District 11: Reno-Sparks; Replaced Doug Hill. Job: Government affairs manager, Economic Development Authority of Western Nevada. Degree: PhD in environmental sciences and health, UNR, 1995. Former Office: Nevada state assemblyman. Main Concern: Prioritizing state dollars.
James Dean Leavitt
Elected in 2004, District 13, Clark County, Southwest/Southeast Las Vegas. Job: Criminal defense attorney. Degree: Juris Doctor, University of Idaho, 1991. Eye on Higher Office: He's been linked to wanting to be attorney general or a judge. Main Concern: Board development and improving higher education's reputation.
Howard Rosenberg
First elected in 1998, District 10, Reno. Job: Art professor, UNR. Degree: Master of Fine Arts, Harvard University, 1965. Eye on Higher Office: No. Main Concern: Students and academic programs.
Jack Lund Schofield
Elected in 2002, District 5: Central Las Vegas. Job: Real estate entrepreneur, retired school administrator. Degree: PhD in Education, UNLV, 1995. Former office: Nevada state senator and assembly member. Main Concern: Getting everyone to "work as a team" to make Nevada the best university system in the country.
Steve Sisolak
First elected in 1998, District 7: Summerlin. Job: Small-business owner. Degree: Master's in Business Administration, UNLV, 1978. Eye on Higher Office: Rumored to have considered runs for Clark County Commission and Nevada secretary of state. Main Concern: No matter what the issue, Sisolak drills staff with questions. He is most noted for having brought a residency discrepancy before the board, in which regents were violating state law.
Michael Wixom
Appointed in 2005 and elected in 2006 to District 5: East Las Vegas, Sunrise Manor. Job: Attorney specializing in banking, real estate finance and commercial transactions. Degree: Juris Doctor, University of Utah, 1986. Eye on Higher Office: Unknown. Main Concern: Protecting the higher education system in business and real estate deals.
Regent Howard Rosenberg pictured simple, efficient television spots - each featuring a regent in front of one of the colleges the board member oversees, each featuring the same, basic message:
"Vote no on Question 9!"
If passed Nov. 7, the constitutional amendment would restructure the statewide Board of Regents, the elected policymakers who oversee two public universities, one state college, four community colleges and one research institute. The measure would reduce the board from 13 to nine, and turn six of those positions into governor appointees. The three remaining seats would be elected from congressional districts. The amendment also reduces terms from six years to four. The proposal has been approved by legislators and, if voters agree with it next month, will go into effect in 2009.
"Proponents will tell you this will make the board more efficient," Rosenberg's proposed ad would have said. "That's bull! What it really does is take your voice in higher education away from you. What the proponents of this initiative don't seem to get is that our democracy depends on the people's voices being heard through their elected representatives."
No one will hear Rosenberg's advertisements because most regents are hoping the amendment will simply die a quiet death and because Rosenberg lost support after offending two of his fellow regents - appointed by Gov. Kenny Guinn to fill vacancies - by calling them "lackeys."
One of those regents, Jason Geddes, voted for the amendment in 2003 when he was a state assemblyman, believing it would make the board more efficient and more balanced.
The rest of the regents generally agree with Rosenberg that the amendment is a "subversion of democracy," although their protests are more muted. Even the few who believe there is merit to appointing regents don't like the current proposal because it calls for a mixed board of elected and appointed regents and it shortens term lengths.
Regents say the hybrid board is a "recipe for disaster," that forcing regents to run in congressional districts would be too costly, and that despite problems in the past, the board is now functioning fine.
If regents aggressively oppose the amendment, they'll draw attention to it and appear self-serving, several regents told Rosenberg. And because its chief proponent, state Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, D-Las Vegas, is too busy running for Clark County commissioner to campaign in favor of Question 9, they are hoping the measure will fail for lack of interest.
Rosenberg acquiesced to the will of his fellow regents, and apologized for his "foot-in-mouth disease" to Geddes. But that hasn't stopped him from railing against the amendment to anyone who will listen.
In one respect, passing Question 9 will bring Nevada in line with the rest of America. Only three other states have elected university regents, and Nevada is the only state to have an elected, statewide board and not elected boards for specific universities.
At least 15 states have elected community college boards, according to the Association of Community College Trustees.
Nevada's neighbors in Arizona, California, Idaho and Utah all have governor-appointed boards, ranging in size from seven members (Idaho) to 26 (California). Terms range from five to 12 years.
Appointed regents are perceived as looking after the university and the state's best interests without being swayed by the various whims of their voters, said Richard Novak, vice president of public programs for the Association of Governing Boards. Elected boards tend to be more political and more involved in micro-management. Elected regents are also more likely to use the position as a springboard to higher office.
Dutiful governors can also ensure a board that is diversified politically, geographically, professionally, racially and between the genders, Novak said - and also appoint good people who are uncomfortable campaigning for election.
On the other hand, a governor can stack the board with party faithful or people to whom he owes favors, Novak said. If passed, Nevada lawmakers have said they would follow up with legislation to set up a screening process to promote a diversified board.
Giunchigliani pushed for the amendment mainly to bring order to what she saw as a large and unruly board.
The Nevada Constitution provided that regents should be elected, but it was the Legislature that decided how they were elected and how many regents there should be.
Lawmakers increased the board's size twice, to 11 members in 1991 and to 13 members in 2001, in order to preserve representation from outside of Clark County while accommodating growth .
As spokeswoman for the Community College of Southern Nevada, Giunchigliani continuously saw regents clash with one another and with outsiders and decided it was time to restructure the board during the 2003 Legislature.
That fall, regents retaliated, attempting to fire Giunchigliani for allegedly using college time to support the bill. The effort failed, but regents violated open meetings laws in the process, and their behavior showed other lawmakers the board "was broken," Giunchigliani said. "I didn't have to make as much of a case," she said.
Pat Goodall, former president of UNLV, believes that if the amendment doesn't pass, the Legislature will likely continue to increase the size of the board, making it more of a legislative body than a governing board. That would be chaos, Goodall said. Regents should take the initiative to find a solution.
"The wrong answer is to be both large and elected," Goodall said.
Regents say they need 13 members to keep their current committee structure, which is the only way they as part-time board members can handle the workload. Each regent currently sits on three or four committees.
Regents also believe that six-year terms are necessary to give them time to understand the policy issues in higher education and make good decisions.
And while they acknowledge the problems of the past, they believe that most were due to communication issues, not the size of the board.
"People like to focus on the past, which I don't understand, but I think the board is moving in a positive direction," said Regent Michael Wixom, recently elected to the post to which he was initially appointed. "As a policy board," he said, "the board needs to be accountable to the public."
That's Chancellor Jim Roger's position, too - even though he initially advocated for an appointed board when he became chancellor in May 2004. Now, he believes he has a good mix of expertise among the regents and that what matters is not whether a board is appointed or elected, but how they get along with each other.
"You can bet your bottom dollar I'm going to vote to keep my right to vote," Rogers said.
archive
