Jon Ralston calls out two regents trying to have it both ways on Jim Rogers’ war with Gov. Jim Gibbons

Friday, Feb. 27, 2009 | 2 a.m.

“(Gov. Jim Gibbons) is simply a greedy, uninterested, unengaged human being whose only, and I mean only, goal is to see what Gibbons can do for himself and his greedy friends.”

— Chancellor Jim Rogers, Nevada Appeal op-ed, Feb. 22

“The governor claims that higher education didn’t cooperate in the budget process. That is not true ... The governor’s budget would, for all practical purposes, eliminate higher education in Nevada. We can only hope that the Legislature has a more sensible vision of our state’s future.”

— Regents Chairman Michael Wixom and Vice Chairman Jason Geddes, Reno Gazette-Journal, Feb. 25

So on the same day they publicly called the governor an insensate liar who wants to destroy higher education, Wixom and Geddes publicly reprimanded Rogers for labeling Gibbons an avaricious, disengaged narcissist.

And they reprimand him?

Gag Order?

War of Words

Just because their language is less emotionally charged, less personal (oh boo hoo), even though they are conveying the same message (the governor is irrelevant and we hope lawmakers will save us), the regents think they can avoid charges of hypocrisy?

Not here. And it’s not just hypocritical for them to prostrate themselves before the governor, feign disciplinary action against Rogers and invest Vice Chancellor Dan Klaich with the power to lobby Gibbons and lawmakers (that is, do his current job): It’s pointless.

Wixom said on “Face to Face” on Thursday that the regents still have to deal with the governor’s authority to apportion stimulus money. But the premise — that pushing Rogers to the background will result in Gibbons suddenly becoming reasonable — presumes that the governor acted with personal malice when he first gutted the system in his budget.

Can they really believe that? Can it be so?

The Wixom-Geddes letter of reprimand issued Wednesday was a marvelous concoction defying physical laws: Who knew invertebrates could spin so well?

The reprimand managed to catch them bowing down before Gibbons, all but begging for forbearance, while pretending they had stood tall and disciplined their rogue employee. In the missive, they called Rogers’ comments “unauthorized and inappropriate” and went on to write:

“You have indicated to us that in making the statements you were acting inappropriately, that you did not intend to speak for the Board of Regents or the System in making such comments, and have expressed your regret for the public impression you were doing so.”

Rogers is chastened? What about the regents?

Which, I wonder, is the worse accusation here — that Gibbons is an insensitive jerk or that he is an untruthful destroyer of the higher ed system?

The regents concluded the most tepid reprimand letter in history by declaring, “You have also agreed, during your service as Chancellor, to refrain from making personal public comments concerning the Governor.”

Get Jim Rogers to shut up? It’s more likely Jim Gibbons will become a visionary.

The regents created this situation by hiring a man with inherently more power — as a wealthy television station owner — than any of them and a person who is willing to do what they have for so long proved ineffective at doing: Fight for a quality higher ed system. Whom did they think they retained — Caspar Milquetoast?

Not surprisingly, Gibbons seized the opening Rogers gave him. The governor wrote to the regents, called the chancellor’s op-ed “vile and insulting” and demanded the board appoint a new interlocutor. Granted, he could have simply dismissed Rogers as a raving nut, but instead he essentially declared, “I won’t talk to him anymore and I am the governor, so you do what I say.”

I don’t know what’s more pathetic: Gibbons’ petulance or the regents’ genuflection.

I have no brief for Rogers. He clearly would make a bull in a china shop look like the picture of serenity. He has no patience, does not suffer fools (guess who?) and despite his obvious passion and substantive missives, has not elevated the dialogue.

But at least he is honest about how he feels and won’t sugarcoat it in namby pamby language so the governor doesn’t get mad. Oh no. Not that.

“When you go up to someone with power and call him a punk, there will be a retaliation,” Regent Ray Rawson said Thursday on “Face to Face.” “ That’s just what it brings. Jim Rogers is just passionate. That passion sometimes will take him into a course that maybe will lead to a fight.”

Yes. It will. But if the destruction of the higher education system, a budget that no member of the Legislature thinks makes sense, is not worth fighting about, then what, pray tell, is?

Certainly not who looks the bigger fool in the latest, entertaining-yet-empty chapter of the regents-Rogers-Gibbons soap opera.

Discussion: 18 comments so far…

By jfnance32

2/27/09 at 2:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

Rogers is a very strong partisan member of the Democratic Party.

Rogers has been giving the f-you to Republicans for a long time now. He help fund the Democrats' takeover of the Senate and give money to the sewer campaigns to help accomplished that goal.

I hope Governor and Senate Republicans do not forgot about this.

He is an absolute enemy of the Republican Party.
By Future2012

2/27/09 at 5:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

Jon Ralston is racing to the defense of Rogers. What a surprise.

Roger's snarky slamdown saying the Gov is simply a greedy, uninterested, unengaged human being whose only, and I mean only, goal is to see what Gibbons can do for himself and his greedy friends." is typical od the the Democratic party in Nevada.

Jon Ralston must defend their antics.

So when the governor wrote to the regents, called the chancellor's op-ed "vile and insulting" and requested the board appoint a new interlocutor, Jon Ralston had to come to Roger defence.

Jon the longer you stand by the unhinged Rogers the further down you also go down.
By lvsunreader2009

2/27/09 at 6:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

Great article, Jon -- look forward to more from you in the Sun and on your show!
By darkhorse

2/27/09 at 7:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

Is it just me, or jfnance and future2012 listening to the band as the Titanic goes down. Rogers behavior is not acceptable but did you forget he was appointed by a Republican, Kenny Guinn. Even the GOP doesn't support Gibbons and will defeat him in the 2010 primary. ( When is the last time an incumbent lost his re-election bid?) Even the rural counties despise Gibbons and his antics. Rogers at least, plays both sides. I am just hoping Gibbons has a reality check and retirees before he wastes any more time fleecing Nevadans.
By JohnF

2/27/09 at 7:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

Great column, truly great.

Future2021,
What column did you read? Ralston in no way defended Rogers' antics. Also, Jim Rogers is not a Democrat.

Mr. Nance, as usual, suggests that we punish Jim Rogers for his politics and his impolitic behavior by gutting the higher education system. That makes sense.
By Future2012

2/27/09 at 8:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

Jon is defending the unhinged Chancellor because it serve his agenda

Jon forgot to report that Chancellor Jim Rogers refused to testify at the legislative budget hearing today.

So if he can not talk to the Gov you would think Rogers would take the small amount of time to make a case to the only legislative body that can actual pass a budget

It seem that Rogers promised his wife a side trip to San Diego today.

Thanks Jon for protecting your BFF.
By hss46

2/27/09 at 9:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

Lets start off with some candor, either your priority is the good of Nevada and its people or your priority is your wallet. Its fine to say Higher Ed is necessary but we have to be able to afford it, but thats not the same as saying we need it and have to pay for it. So lets stop pretending its relevant whether Rogers is a Democrat or Republican, whether Ralson is pro or anit Rogers, or whether the Regents chastised him or not.

The entire budget shortfall for next year compared to the current year is less than $1.00 per day per person. So when you say we can't afford to restore the budget for everything, not just higher ed, you are saying you think your $1.00 is more important than the services the government provides. If thats not selfishness, if saying I'd rather thousands of students get no higher education than pay $1.00 per day, thats a statement of your priorities. This isn't a debate about Rogers or Gibbons or the Regents, its about our values as a state.

And raising tuition isn't the answer eitiher. Firstly there are too many prospective students that are frozen out at current tuition levels. Additionally, if we increase the cost we become so much more expensive than neighboring states, our enrollment loss would outweigh the tuition increase. And worst of all, the quality students are the first to flee.

I will acknowledge that I have a dog in this race. I'd like to see revenue raised more than merely back to 2009 levels. Our current budget is based on a General Fund which is barely $1,000 per person while other states have General Funds that exceed $4,000 per person. We are 'miserly' at best as a state in our willingness to provide for our own government. And we are getting what we pay for.
By hss46

2/27/09 at 9:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

And for those of you who want to say its about jobs and the economy, ask yourself, does any rational employer want to ask his management to relocate to a state where the people's priorities are to save a buck rather than fund the government services needed, and to fund them at starvation levels. Higher Ed's budget for 2009 has already been cut by some 12% over the past two years so even without the Gibbons' cut, Higher Ed is substantially underfunded, 49th in the nation in funding. With the cut proposed by Gibbons, higher ed as we know it will cease to exist. Donors will view contributions as throwing good money after bad, future funding increases will be incremental based on that new baseline, and only those students who can not get into viable schools will attend our schools. (And then Patrick Gibbons and NVPI will say look, we are taking money from students who can't graduate.)

How can anyone say, with a straight face, that the impact on jobs from filling the budget gap with taxes amounting to $1.00 per day per person will have a worse impact on jobs in the state would be worse than ending the higher education system as we know it. And on top of that, how can we train or retrain our people for the 21st Century jobs that they'll need for the recovery of our economy if the schools that train for those jobs are shuttered.
By darkhorse

2/27/09 at 9:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

I think Future and Nance should read the Emperors New Clothes. What has Gibbons done to diversify Nevada's economy and stop relying on gaming and mining? Nada, Zilch, Zero. He is to concerned with helping those that contributed to his campaigns and legal defense funds.
By jfnance32

2/27/09 at 12:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

The Regents made a stupid decision to keep crazy
Rogers on for so long especially after he made remarks that he was going after Republicans and donate money to fund sewer campaigns against them.

I hope that they learned a good lesson.

One should not appoint an extreme partisan to be in that position.

I am confident that Rogers is hurting not helping Higher Ed.
By hss46

2/27/09 at 12:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

jfnance:

Your definition of a partisan is someone whose perspective is different than yours. I could retire on what Rogers has donated to Republicans. Your problems is that he thinks taxes should go up and your a self interested miser like Gibbons is. You'd rather Nevada loses its higher education system, jobs leave Nevada and no new employers move to our state so long as you pay zero additional tax.

Rogers didn't say he was going after "republicans" he said he was going after the "no new tax" zealots like Heck and Beers who happened to be republican. But he supported Raggio and Hardy who may or may not support new taxes. Try getting the odd fact correct rather than just ranting against taxes. We might think your related to the Governor or Patrick.
By Future2012

2/27/09 at 1:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

You need to look at the real true actual working budget today to compare the delta.

The 14% budget increase approved two years ago was never achievable. It was unrealistic; the revenue projections were bad, growth used in the projection have not become real.

Simply
2005-2007 Less than $6 Billion
2007-2009 Approved $6.8 Billion 14% increase
2007-2009 Actual as reduced Less than $6 billion
2009-2011 Proposed $6.2 Billion

Counting federal and other funds such as highway collections, Gibbons is presenting the 2009 Legislature with a $17.3 billion biennial budget or just 0.9 percent lower than the 2007-2009 fiscal year spending program.

Now Obama is giving the state $1.5 billion of free money. And the Gov room tax is already approved.

We can get by on all that money. Go figure.
By jfnance32

2/27/09 at 2:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

I think Rogers got bit by a bat.

I saw him foaming at the mouth the other day.
By JohnF

2/27/09 at 3:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

I'm constantly amazed by some of those on the extreme right. I often see posts from people saying that if you think the government needs more money you are free to send it to them. Well, Jim Rogers has done that. He has given literally millions of dollars of his own money to universities not only in this state, but in Arizona and California as well. The law school at the University of Arizona bears his name. A number of buildings and facilities at UNLV bear the name Jim Rogers.

But because Rogers can be offensive, because he often speaks out of anger, people would destroy our state's higher education system. Insane.

This isn't about personalities, at least it shouldn't be. This is about the kind of place we want our state to be. We have amply demonstrated that low taxes alone won't bring businesses to our state. The owners of high tech firms have told Oscar Goodman point blank that they won't come to Las Vegas because of our lack of an educated work force. When will we realize that as long as we have a population with an education sufficient only to park cars and count to twenty-one then we will have jobs only for valets and dealers?

And no, I am not denigrating valets and dealers, but we need to have more to offer.
By jfnance32

2/27/09 at 4:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

I think people in La-La land if they ever think that Las Vegas will one day become a mecca for high tech companies.

There are dozens-upon-dozens-upon-dozens of cities that often tons of tax breaks and have established tech support systems.

I think it would be crazy to do that.

That would be like Rogers saying he wants to compete with Tiger Woods on the golf course.

It is lame thinking like that makes taxpayers take a step back and say "What the Hell are they taking about".

Las Vegas has very little industry area. We are surrounding by Federal land. It will never be a place for major commerical industry to say, "Hey lets move to Las Vegas."

Your argument might work better for the northern area of the state.

Still, we should not try to compete in areas where we have a very long shot to be competive.

We need to look at areas that others do not care about. We could become a leader in nuclear recycle technologies. Hmmmm....interesting idea...

Of course, Rogers is too busy screaming and foaming at the mouth to think like that. Rogers is like a crazy uncle that is constantly yelling at the dog. He hurts and does not help Higher Ed's cause in Carson City.
By gmag39

2/27/09 at 11:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

nance, the gibbons apologist and big-time basher of Jim Rogers. Venomous, even. I think the root of the whole thing is TAXES! Nance is worried sick about the amount of TAXES that will be required to adequately fund higher ed. All the other nonsense he writes on the subject is just his way of venting frustration at the fact that more TAXES will be required.
By jfnance32

2/28/09 at 12:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

gmag must be dependent on tax dollars.

Are you a government employee or a student?
By darkhorse

2/28/09 at 7:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

Nance and Future may be on to something. Gibbons got his education and did nothing with it but get elected and live off of the taxpayers. I would include his Guard Duty but this man has no integrity or honor.

« Previous Ten Next Ten »

Live chat: Tuesday, noon PST; Chat with Krista Creelman; Problem Gambling Center executive director Krista Creelman will answer questions about gambling addiction from Las Vegas Sun readers from noon to 1 p.m. Tuesday, Nov. ... Submit question