Inside Politics - February 2004

Board of Regents Ignite Controversy

Closed Meeting Provokes Protests

by Michael Sullivan

It’s not uncommon for a public body to make a decision that causes controversy. It happens on a fairly routine basis at most levels of local government, and last year’s tax decision by the Nevada Legislature certainly created a stir.

However, the recent decision by the Nevada Board of Regents to demote Community College of Southern Nevada President Ron Remington and lobbyist John Cummings has ignited a firestorm that will have long-lasting effects on that board and in the community as a whole.

In November, the regents decided, after two days of closed-door hearings and a two-month investigation, to return both men to the classroom (they also moved to begin proceedings to terminate Cumming’s tenure status).

What has many people in Southern Nevada fuming is the way the regents went about that decision. Under the pretense of holding a "closed-door" personnel session, which is allowed under Nevada law, they conducted what many observers (including several regents) called a "witch-hunt".

The specifics surrounding and leading up to these proceedings would take two magazine pages to explain (the report the board received was more than 1,000 pages long). Suffice to say, the group found enough problems that they felt justified in demoting the two administrators. However, instead of conducting an open hearing or allowing these men to confront the charges and answer specific questions about their conduct, a majority of the regents voted to demote them.

This board is no stranger to open-meeting law violations. They have been criticized before, and the attorney general is investigating whether they violated the law on this occasion as well.

It is apparent from the condensed minutes of the meeting that the regents did far more than just listen to testimony in their closed-door meeting. They debated, they said how they were going to vote, and they made critical statements about the conduct of each man. Even though several members urged restraint and asked that the accused be given a chance to speak, the majority voted for removal.

Several of those voting to demote Cummings and Remington said the two men did get a chance to speak, because they were interviewed by investigators. However, they didn’t get a chance to respond to specific allegations brought by the investigators and defend comments made by some regents during the meeting.

Nevada’s open-meeting law is pretty easy to follow. It is designed to make sure elected boards and those who oversee public funds can’t make critical decisions without input from the people. Without these constraints, government would have unlimited power.

Imagine if the city council could meet anytime it wanted and decide and debate anything, like whether to put a jail in your neighborhood. You would have no way of knowing where or when the meeting was to take place, and you would have no way of voicing opposition or mounting a challenge to this move. While it doesn’t always make doing the public’s business easy, following Nevada’s open meeting law is critical if a public body is to truly and honestly represent its constituents.

Now that the calendar has turned to 2004, you’re likely to see political signs springing up like spring flowers on your local roadways. Just remember…in many races these signs are the most cost-effective medium for a candidate to spread word of his or her candidacy. While they can get annoying, try and keep in mind the people putting them up aren’t trying to aggravate you – just get you to take some interest in our great democratic process.

Michael Sullivan
Michael Sullivan is president of Knight Consulting, a Southern Nevada government affairs firm.