Rogers again alienates regents by publicly backing appointed board

Friday, March 2, 2007 | 7:09 a.m.

University system Chancellor Jim Rogers, risking his recently repaired relationship with regents, is telling state lawmakers he would support a state constitutional amendment to have his bosses appointed instead of elected.

Two regents said the brashly outspoken Rogers is once again alienating the board.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Raggio, R-Reno, and Republican Sens. Randolph Townsend and Dennis Nolan have proposed a joint resolution to give the Legislature authority to decide the number of regents on the board, and their qualifications, with the governor making the appointments.

A similar amendment calling for a mixed appointed and elected board was narrowly rejected by voters in November.

The appointed-versus-elected issue has long been a sensitive one for regents, who contend that, as trustees of the state's higher education system, they should remain accountable to the state's citizens. While a few, including recently appointed Regent Jason Geddes, say they believe an appointed board might function better, the majority have told the Sun they see no reason to change.

Rogers, then, is supporting a bill his board would vote to oppose. And he is staking his position just a few weeks after a public spat with a regent almost led Rogers and the regents to part ways.

"I think it is interesting that as our employee he would take a position on that without consulting regents," said Chairman Bret Whipple, who responded to the news with subdued laughter. "It is something obviously the board will have to address."

Regent Howard Rosenberg, a strong opponent of appointing regents and an outgoing Rogers critic, characterized Rogers' actions as a terminable offense.

"The chancellor seems to have a real problem knowing the distinction between being the chancellor of the university system and a private citizen," Rosenberg said.

Rogers was reluctant to talk about his support of the bill, but confirmed for the Sun he had told lawmakers he believed appointing regents was in the best interest of the Nevada System of Higher Education.

"I don't have a problem with the present board," Rogers said. "But I'm concerned about the future, and statistically speaking, I think there is a better chance that the system will function as a system with a strong chancellor and an appointed board."

Rogers said he worried that elected regents were more prone to political grandstanding - and would more likely intimidate and interfere with a chancellor - than appointed regents.

"From time to time they drive me pretty close to the edge, and I'm concerned about the next chancellor and of him wanting to come in and having to worry about his job every Friday afternoon."

Nevada is one of four states with an elected Board of Regents, and the only one to have a statewide elected board.

Rogers said he was concerned that regents would use the position as a political springboard to a higher office, and said he thought appointing regents through some kind of screening commission might yield better qualified candidates.

Rogers said establishing regent qualifications would help prevent the governor from using the appointments to dole out political favors, which is a criticism of appointed boards.

One of the criticisms of an elected board is its necessary size. To retain at least four regents from outside Clark County, the Legislature has increased the size of the Board of Regents as Clark County has grown. The board has grown from nine to 13 members.

If lawmakers don't change the structure and continue to increase the size, it will become more and more unwieldy, Pat Goodall, former UNLV president, told regents in August.

He suggested regents develop their own proposal for restricting the size of the board, or risk having lawmakers do it for them.

The amendment would need to be approved by lawmakers twice and then by voters in November 2010 to become law.