Rogers-regents rocky marriage hits a wall

By Christina Littlefield

Saturday, Jan. 13, 2007 | 7:10 a.m.

From the moment three years ago when Jim Rogers took over as chancellor of the Nevada System of Higher Education, his maverick, authoritarian ways made him a candidate for either the guillotine or sainthood - or in the eyes of some regents, both.

Friday's eruption, with two regents calling for his dismissal, seemed inevitable. The question now is whether this is the end of the action-oriented chancellor's tenure, or whether, like two teenage boys who finally duke it out, they become fast friends.

Indeed, nine regents interviewed by the Sun on Friday said they were highly dismayed by the chancellor's recent actions - but six said they hoped to work through the dispute and keep Rogers as chancellor.

Rogers' brusque business style has regularly clashed with the slow-moving, consultive nature of academia, triggering a palpable tension. But he was successful - reining in an unruly, 13-member Board of Regents, cajoling the system's eight presidents to work better together and bringing a renewed credibility to higher education that meant greater funding from state lawmakers.

So regents often looked the other way when Rogers ran roughshod to get the job done. Preferring bare knuckles to gloves, he ousted two university presidents, called a gubernatorial candidate "not very bright" and at election time gave money to some regent candidates but not others.

It was a tumultuous marriage between the businessman and the board, held intact by their shared passion for students.

This week, after he appointed former congressional candidate Tessa Hafen to lobby for his pet project, that marriage is on the rocks, in desperate need of counseling. But the differences may be irreconcilable.

This was more than a tiff - there had been plenty of those over the years, forgiven but not forgotten - a destructive, angry fight that turned quickly public.

Rogers was angry that Regent James Dean Leavitt had questioned his appointment of Hafen to lobby on behalf of a university health science system. So angry, in fact, that he sent a curt letter to Regent Chairman Bret Whipple demanding that Leavitt back off or Rogers would resign.

Leavitt and Whipple said they wouldn't tolerate the arrogance of a chancellor telling them how to run their affairs. After a long day of consulting back and forth, they called for Rogers' resignation.

The question now is whether regents will decide to divorce their renegade chancellor or whether the relationship can be saved. What's clear, from talking to nine of the 13 elected regents, is that there may be more chinks in the marriage than anyone realized and that Rogers will need to backtrack quickly if he wants to continue to lead the Nevada System of Higher Education.

The showdown between Rogers and Leavitt started earlier this week, when Rogers wrote regents that he had - without a formal search - hired Hafen on a six-month contract at a prorated salary of $100,000 a year. Given that Rogers and his family donated more than $10,000 to Hafen's campaign (and contributed as well to her successful opponent, Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev.), that health science Vice Chancellor Marcia Turner had previously worked with Hafen on several occasions, and that newlywed Hafen's husband, Spencer Stewart, was an associate vice president at Nevada State College in Henderson, Leavitt wasn't the only regent to question the hire.

While Hafen clearly had strong federal ties as the former press secretary for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., Leavitt and others wondered about her experience as a lobbyist at the state level.

On Tuesday, Leavitt discussed his concerns with Turner and Executive Vice Chancellor Dan Klaich. Turner explained that Hafen had contacted her about Turner's former position at UNLV, and that she seemed perfect for the open lobbyist position she had in health sciences. With the 2007 Legislature then only a month a way, Rogers decided to waive the search process and hire Hafen for the job.

Leavitt says his conversation with Turner was civil, but when he raised his concerns over the phone to Rogers the next day, he says the chancellor "exploded."

Notorious for his quick temper, Rogers said Friday that he viewed the tone of Leavitt's concerns as questioning his integrity, something he could not abide. He also believed that Leavitt was meddling in the system's daily operations. Rogers said such micromanagement would undermine him.

"It was quite apparent to me that I could not persuade him, that he needed to understand that he was a regent and not the chancellor, and that I was the chancellor and not the regent," Rogers said by phone from his Montana ranch. "He, in my mind, doesn't understand the distinction and wants to be involved in everything. I told him, 'If you want to be the chancellor why don't you apply for the job and I'll quit.' "

Rogers followed up with the letter to Whipple, giving notice that if Leavitt is elected chairman or vice chairman of the board, he would immediately quit.

Rogers also said that if Leavitt does not stop undermining activities in the chancellor's office, he would also hand in his resignation.

"James Dean's lust for power, along with his total lack of knowledge and sophistication in the operation of any large organization, makes it impossible to deal with him," Rogers wrote Whipple. "Every week is worse than the previous week."

Leavitt, who as chairman of the regents' health science committee had supported Rogers, said he was dumbfounded by the threat. As a regent, he was simply providing a "check and balance" to the system office, Leavitt said.

The notion that Rogers dare dictate board governance was, Leavitt said, a terminable offense.

"I no longer have confidence that Chancellor Rogers is serving the best interests of the state," Leavitt said.

No regent interviewed by the Sun defended Rogers' actions. But two, Dorothy Gallagher and Steve Sisolak, saw it as a typical Rogers blow-up and not a purposeful undermining of the board's authority.

But several regents backed Leavitt and Whipple's take that Rogers had stepped way over the line in trying to dictate board action. His letter raised deep concerns among Regents Michael Wixom, Stavros Anthony, Jack Lund Schofield, Howard Rosenberg and the newly elected Ron Knecht.

Regents Cedric Crear, Jason Geddes, Thalia Dondero and Mark Alden could not be reached.

"I am very, very disturbed by the letter," Wixom said. "I don't think it is an appropriate response to James' inquiries. He can't pick and choose what regent he deals with, and it is wholly inappropriate of Rogers to undermine the board's authority."

Regent Howard Rosenberg, a UNR art professor and rather constant critic of Rogers, said the letter was childish.

"He's saying, what, 'If you do this, I'll take my marbles and go home'? Anyone with a brain is going to forge alliances and figure out how to work with people who he disagrees with."

Gallagher, a longtime friend of Rogers, agreed ­- but said Whipple and Leavitt had similarly overstepped boundaries by calling for Rogers' resignation without consulting the board. She also believed that they should have tried to resolve the flare-up quietly.

"Any board that is stupid enough to fire the chancellor a month before the Legislature should be confined," Gallagher said. "You know how it is going to come out - it will not be Jim Rogers at fault, it will be the crazy Board of Regents again."

While many regents and system officials were surprised at the sudden fallout, others said it had been coming for months.

Rogers' recent missives attacking the UNLV football team had prompted Whipple to add an agenda item for this month's meeting to discuss proper board and chancellor relationships.

The sudden resignation of Carol Harter in January 2006 led Rosenberg and former Regent Linda Howard to call for a special board meeting to review Rogers' level of authority.

Rogers also has irked regents by seemingly running Howard out of office in favor of Crear, his son Perry's childhood friend. Also irking regents were Rogers encouraging old friend Troy Wade to run against Alden and giving more than $20,000 through his television station to Knecht's opponent in that open race.

But perhaps the real fault lines were created over the health science system, over which, regents said, Rogers was obsessing to the detriment of other issues facing higher education. Twice in the last year, when regents raised questions about the system, Rogers exploded in anger.

Stuck in the middle of this week's fracas was Hafen, who was the fifth major hire for the system in almost as many months without searches and all without consulting regents.

Some Republicans questioned her hiring, given that she has spent years firing away at the GOP.

"Ideally, lobbyists don't wear partisan badges," Republican Assemblywoman Frances Allen said, "and she would be walking around the Capitol, and everyone knows she's a partisan and is probably running for office again. That's potentially problematic."

Sen. Bob Beers, R-Las Vegas, who's set to be vice chairman of the Finance Committee and will have significant input on the university system's budget, said he has nothing personal against Hafen, but nevertheless, "If the university system can hire an entry-level Carson City lobbyist for three times what a teacher makes, they have money to burn."

All regents agreed that the timing of this fallout with the Legislature approaching was distressing, but most believed that Whipple and Leavitt were right to raise the issue.

Still, most also hope that the marriage can still be salvaged.

Rogers and Leavitt "both have the right motives and the right interests, and I am hoping that wins out in the end," Sisolak said.

Sun reporter J. Patrick Coolican contributed to this report.