Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
UNLV President David Ashley rubs his eyes during a regents meeting at the Desert Research Institute Friday, July 10, 2009. The regents of the Nevada System of Higher Education decided to demote Ashley from his position as president and return him to the university faculty.
Saturday, July 11, 2009 | 2 a.m.
Sun Archives
- UNLV president demoted to university faculty spot (7-10-2009)
- UNLV president garners praise, catches a break (7-8-2009)
- Bonnie Ashley will not be part of the regents’ discussion (7-8-2009)
- Ashley says he's ready to respond to state's concerns (6-27-2009)
- Regents to discuss future of UNLV president at July meeting (6-22-2009)
- Rogers calls for Ashley’s ouster (6-17-2009)
- Rogers: UNLV President Ashley should be fired (6-16-09)
- Decision on Ashley wanted soon (6-9-2009)
Sun Coverage
Beyond the Sun
David Ashley knew going into Friday’s face-off with regents that he would have to defend his communication skills, his level of involvement in the community and possibly even how he handled his headstrong wife.
He didn’t think he’d have to defend standing up for his university during the recent legislative session.
But that was the clincher complaint that appeared to seal Ashley’s demotion from the UNLV presidency. After a daylong hearing on Ashley’s performance, instead of extending his contract, the Board of Regents unanimously reassigned Ashley to the faculty with a new office and a year of his presidential salary.
Many issues raised by the regents were expected: Ashley’s a poor communicator; he has a reputation for not responding to people; and he occasionally ignores easily managed issues until they blow up in his face.
But a few of the dozen regents and new Chancellor Dan Klaich also were highly critical of something else: Ashley’s refusal to roll over when the board’s plan for dealing with budget cuts disproportionately hit Southern Nevada colleges.
Klaich and Regents Jason Geddes and Ray Rawson led an attack on Ashley for his lobbying of legislators on behalf of UNLV. Ashley sought to unfairly gain a benefit for his institution at the expense of others in the state’s higher education system. Ashley’s actions dealt a blow to the shaky union those institutions had formed in recent years, Rawson said.
The Board of Regents had proposed to the Legislature a budget plan that would make the same percentage cut in every institution’s budget. Under that plan, because of funding inequities that have existed for decades between Northern and Southern Nevada, UNLV would have taken a bigger hit than its Northern Nevada peer. UNLV’s budget would have lost $11 million more than that of the University of Nevada, Reno.
Geddes, who represents Washoe County on the board, said Ashley’s behind-the-scenes lobbying to make the reductions more equitable showed he can’t collaborate and wasn’t interested in the good of the system. In other words, he wasn’t a team player.
“You continued to pursue your dissenting opinion throughout the session and the final vote came out as your decision. I found that very troubling,” Geddes said. “You can dissent all you want (initially), but once the board makes a decision, you need to give it up.”
Rawson, a former state senator who represents Clark County on the Board of Regents, said the end run had cost Ashley the respect of other system presidents. He said Ashley’s behavior was destructive to higher education.
“There have been times when I’ve been as passionate about fighting for my issue as you are,” Rawson said. “But experience teaches you that we do better together ... We lost ground because of what happened in the session.”
He said it would make it more difficult to deal with the Legislature in the next session.
Klaich, also from Northern Nevada, said university presidents have no right to lobby independently.
“The budgetary decision was made,” he said, “and once this board makes a decision, all of us who are officers of the board have an obligation to support the recommendation of the board.”
At his hearing and in interviews afterward, Ashley defended his interaction with the Legislature. He said he had then-Chancellor Jim Rogers’ blessing to take his concerns about inequity to legislators.
“It was what I had to do for the university,” Ashley said after the meeting. “I absolutely felt I was within the scope of what I was allowed to do and even encouraged to do by the chancellor. I couldn’t have done anything else. It would have undermined UNLV.”
Rogers said at the meeting that he had given Ashley clearance to fight for his views among the presidents and to give a dissenting opinion to the regents when the proposal was presented to them. But he did not reveal whether he had given Ashley the green light to lobby the Legislature.
Rogers couldn’t be reached for comment after the meeting. But one of his earliest priorities had been ending the long-standing funding tug-of-war between the universities in the north and south. He pushed out Carol Harter as president of UNLV and John Lilley as president of UNR in 2006 and 2005 in part because of their inability to work well as a team.
Student representatives had a different view of Ashley’s lobbying effort. They said it was Ashley’s job to stand up for the university against unfair and crippling cuts and that they were proud of the work he did in Carson City. They said it saved jobs and helped keep the university alive.
“I say God bless him for advocating for UNLV and the funding, and I hope the next president has the temerity to do that,” UNLV student body President Adam Cronis said. “Unity is important, but when the rubber hits the road, as president you have to look at your people and their lives.”
Students, faculty and one former regent said Ashley had been unfairly singled out on the matter. They said he was one of many who fought the regents’ budget plan.
“He was part of a huge population of Southern Nevadans that were against it,” said Steve Sisolak, a former regent turned Clark County commissioner. “It was a disproportionate cut to UNLV versus UNR. It was obvious, egregious and should have been brought to the attention of the Legislature sooner.”
Graduate students said the campus community would have turned against Ashley if he had acted in any other way.
“Faculty and students would have said he failed the university if he had been silent about that plan,” said Kyle George, vice president of the Graduate and Professional Student Association. “He was damned if he did and damned if he didn’t.”
If Rogers did give Ashley the green light to lobby the Legislature then should not the Regents at least censure Rogers (yeah I know he is about to leave office)?
Of course, they would not do that. It would mean they had balls and brains.
The Keystone Regents have been letting Bully Rogers run all over them on a daily basis.
Why exactly do we have the Keystone Regents in the first place if people like Rogers are pulling their puppet strings?
What will they do without their bully Rogers?
Good luck to finding a decent replacement for Ashley.
Only nut jobs will apply.
You have to be a fool to that take position. In a few years, they will run you out of the job with tar and feathers like they have now done to 2 previous presidents.
Very good reporting. This could have been easily missed. Thank you.
Anyone with half a brain must have known that Roger's public beef against Ashley was about something more than just his wife. I would've never guessed, however, that Ashley's lobbying efforts would be the final nail on the coffin of his presidency. Bottom line: Ashley was demoted for advocating *too much* on behalf of UNLV, and for taking the issue of funding parity seriously.
The sad state of higher ed in NV just got a tad more pathetic.
"The desk, together with a matching 4-foot-long peninsula, cost $15,736.20..."
Does he get to keep his desk?
Kudos to Leavitt and Klaich for taking this on and being proactive. A sign of solid leadership. Enough already David Ashley...you can't have it both ways. Bonnie -who many suspect is not even your wife- used tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars of University resources. For that, she should have been part of your evalation. How arrogent to ask for a car for her when others have lost their jobs. I hope Leavitt continues his strong position and makes you pay back every cent that Bonnie spent!
One point to keep in mind: The Board of Regents, a group where nine of the 13 members are from Clark County, chose to propose "to the Legislature a budget plan that would make the same percentage cut in every institution's budget." If the negative impact were so great on UNLV, why would such a southern-weighted board choose the plan they did?
It's because the entire system was fighting for its life and it was not the time to address funding discrepancies. Yes, UNLV would take a hit under the plan, but the system as a whole would emerge better than under Ashley's plan.
My fear as a Reno resident now is that Harter will be named the interim and will work with Buckley, Horsford and Rogers to enact a funding formula discrepancy in the opposite direction, sending UNR on a death spiral.
As a member of the UNLV community, it is my opinion that the removal of David Ashley as president was the best thing for the university at this time. Under his administration there is really no articulated mission or goals. He has generally been out of sight during his tenure and has done little to nothing, imo, to engage or motiviate faculty and staff to want to come to work every day.
While the issues the Regents raised during the hearing may appear petty or even political on the surface, they are issues that "filter down" with respect to leadership. Yes, he established the President's Advisory Committee. Yet it has been rumored that the committee seldom meets. Yes, he "established" the 50 to 100 campaign to move UNLV through the next 50 years of its existence; yet the implimentation of that plan has not been articulated "downward" to the rest of the campus. Yes, he had "town meetings" regarding the budget; but depending on which one you attended the information was very different. There's been a whole lot of window dressing and that's it. Nothing more.
When I came to UNLV, it was an exciting place to be. The possibilities seemed to be endless and the entire campus community were provided the opportunity to be engaged in developing strategic and innovative plans to realized those possibilities. In the three years that David Ashley has been at the helm, however, no one knows where we're going or how to get there.
David Ashley may indeed be brilliant. He may be a wonderful engineer. But, a president he is not. And I find it very difficult to believe, regardless of what is "said to be true" that the campus evaluation survey of him garnered favorable results. I know NO ONE who completed the survey who thought he was a good president or supported renewing his contract. NO ONE!!
Hopefully, the Regents will once again do the right thing by putting selecting an interim president who knows how to motivate the campus at large. Who that person should be is an entirely different kind of conversation. But, hopefully they will look to someone who has a proven track record at UNLV and the overall support of the campus. That person may well NOT be the current acting president.
I think Ashley's wife sealed his fate by not allowing herself to be served. He said that he has no persuasion over his wife, which is really sad because I think most good spouses would cooperate on their husbands behalf if in the same situation. This is probably a job better suited to someone with more control over his own life, and someone assertive enough to not allow a spouse to overstep their boundaries.
If Ashley is so bad then were is the review of those that hired this extremely poor performing president.
Oh...that would be Rogers and Keystone Regents.
In a way, they are saying that they have no clue what they are doing.
On this one, the Regents and Rogers DID have a clue which is exactly the reason Ashley is no longer president.
The regents led a vicious attack on Ashley that didn't cease until all had left the room at the end of the meeting. Thank God for David Ashley! UNLV is an urban institute with far more students. Why shouldn't it get equally funded? Even so, the presidents of other institutions are still good friends with Ashley, and I'm sure if their campuses were expected to take such a disproportinate cut and they had been left underfunded for years thanks to Northern lobbysists, they would have spoken out like Ashley was brave enough to do.
The Board of Regents is looking for a stool pidgeon who'll follow them to their own demise. This is a truly sad day in higher ed.
Everyone keeps speaking about his wife. Well, over the last few months, Bonnie has not appeared at numerous school functions and has apologized a number of times. She didn't appear at the regents' meeting because she would've been the subject of much unfair ridicule by certain regents (ex: Crear, who turned around whenever Ashley spoke, yelled at members of the public, rolled his eyes and stared out of the window for most of the meeting).
Carol Harter was on the committee that created the unfair funding formula. She did not stand up for her own campus then. The difference in funding between the campuses was four times larger when she left than when she got here. The North loves Harter for not standing up for UNLV.
"[Ashley] has done little to nothing, imo, to engage or motiviate faculty and staff to want to come to work every day."
When did the president's job become motivating faculty to come to work everyday?! As a UNLV faculty member, I look toward the president for many things - leadership and advocacy being two of them - but motivation is not one of them.
I am not going to argue that Ashley was the best university president I've ever encountered; but he was certainly not the worst. (I wasn't at UNLV during the Harter era, so I can't comment on what she was like, or how Ashley compares).
What does concern me, however, is this: how do the Regents expect to "sell" the UNLV presidency to any qualified candidate with half a brain and a modicum of self-respect after the last two presidents have been run out of their jobs?
Critiques about Ashley's wife and his communication style notwithstanding, I think there's something to be said about Ashley finding himself caught between a rock and a hard place - especially insofar as the budget situation was concerned. There's no way that anyone can effectively lead a university and make necessary changes from the position of, "you're damned if you do, damned if you don't"; it's impossible.
"On this one, the Regents and Rogers DID have a clue which is exactly the reason Ashley is no longer president."
Uhhhh......how can they have a clue when they are the ones that hired him in the first place?
"If Rogers did give Ashley the green light to lobby the Legislature then should not the Regents at least censure Rogers (yeah I know he is about to leave office)?"
It might do you a world of good to read the story before commenting, Nance. That way you won't look so blatantly uninformed. Rogers left the position of Chancellor last month. Dan Klaich is the current Chancellor.
Ashley stood up for UNLV, and lobbied the legislature to change the funding formula to ensure equitable treatment of his university. Its shameful that the Board of Regents would rather propagate the funding inequity than stand behind someone willing to speak to power. Its beyond ridiculous that Jim Rogers, who seemed more interested in Ashley's wife than his job performance, or the Board, which regularly had to reign Rogers in for being off-message, would suddenly think it necessary to demote someone who spoke out.
Rogers was upset Ashley wasn't his puppet. But it's frankly pathetic that the democratically-elected Board still felt it necessary to pursue the vendetta of Jim Rogers. This is one UNLV alum that won't be sad to see Rogers gone.
theBS is either a student or employee at UNLV.
I know you're not Sherlock Holmes, Nance, but I made it pretty clear in the last sentence of my posting that I'm alumni. I don't have a hidden agenda, nor do I need to hide behind multiple screen names like some other cowards. (ahem)
Well, if the board of Regents employs Ashley, he needs to follow their direction. I'm not sure that rises to the level of firing or demoting him, but that's the decision his employers make.
I think if UNLV wanted the funding changed, this would have been the best session yet to approach the legislature. When the bipartisan legislature laughed Jim Gibbons and his budget out of town, higher ed had alot more sympathy.
I guess we now know that the regents only want lapdogs as University Presidents. I think that's a stupid idea... dumb as a Rock.
"I'm not sure that rises to the level of firing or demoting him, but that's the decision his employers make."
You are right for once Ksand99.....Rogers should have been fired a long time ago.
"do I need to hide behind multiple screen names like some other cowards"
Yes Mr. Couragous Anonymous
It's obvious to anyone who can read that I was talking about Ashley, not Rogers jfNance32, err, James F Nance Jr, err, Sgt Rock.
As usual, that excludes you.
I am sorry Kevin Sandoval (ksand99).....When you said that employers tend to fire employees who do not follow direction, I thought you were referring to Rogers who did that constantly.
I am glad you admit you have problems reading. Admitting you have a problem is the first step.
So.....the President of UNLV was demoted for fighting for more equitable budget cuts for UNLV? Does anyone see the irony in this?