Regents’ subsequent steps will give voters a way of their health to serve

0
706

Yasmina Chavez

A view of the Nevada Systems of Higher Education building Thursday, October 14, 2021.

When the Nevada Board of Regents meets on Friday to select new officers after two complaints about hostile workplace complaints filed against board members, it is imperative that they do the following:

Pick two people who are not accused of inappropriate behavior and let them lead the board while the complaints are investigated.

With Chair Cathy McAdoo and Vice Chair Patrick Carter stepping down from their positions while Chancellor Melody Rose’s complaint against them is being investigated, the regents must ensure that their successors do not raise a conflict of interest based on their allegations or those of the Truckee Meadows Community College President Karin Hilgersom has a complaint.

Sources tell the Sun that Hilgersom made her allegations against a current regent and a former board member, none of whom she has identified by name. However, sources familiar with the complaint believe that based on Hilgersom’s description, the regents may suggest the identity of the current regent.

Hence, this regent most likely knows that he is the focus of Hilgersom’s complaint, as do his colleagues. Given the situation, the regent should refuse to be considered for officer roles. If he does not, the other rulers should ignore him as a choice for positions.

Anyone who takes over for McAdoo and Carter must be free from similar allegations.

Given that the Chair and Vice-Chairs have significant powers in the selection and prioritization of Board affairs, it would be totally inappropriate for anyone named in an active complaint to lead the Board.

In the meantime, McAdoo and Carter should either abstain or, if possible, be prevented from voting on the interim chairman and vice chairman. They shouldn’t have a say – chances are they’ll choose someone to protect them from the allegations.

The regents owe it to everyone in the higher education system and to the Nevada voters who voted for them to see that Rose and Hilgersom’s complaints are investigated completely free of interference by the board of directors.

There are serious problems here. Rose accuses McAdoo and Carter of sex discrimination, abuse and humiliation, undermining their authority, and violating ethics and code of conduct in order to oust them. Hilgersom’s lawsuit reportedly contains similar allegations.

We are pretty sure that the regents would not be foolish enough to replace their officers with someone else accused of such behavior and risk risking this mess about leadership again. The system in which the Chancellor normally works with the Chair and Vice-Chair to set the regents’ agenda has reportedly been paralyzed since Rose’s complaint in early October. With McAdoo and Carter sticking to their positions, communications with the Chancellor broke down and effective oversight went out the window. All three regent meetings, which were on the calendar between the beginning of October and the special session on Friday, have either been canceled or postponed.

Now is the time to restore order by selecting new officials who are unbiased, will not be named in these complaints, and who can work with Rose to keep the operations going during the independent investigation. There are 10 other regents to choose from.

The regents should know that they will be closely watched on Friday. The body has long had a reputation for sweeping misdemeanors under the rug and condoning discriminatory behavior towards women.

Examples of this abound, such as the reinstatement of an administrator who was fired after a whistleblower reported him for watching pornography and masturbating in his office, and the regents’ failure to reprimand their former Special Counsel Dean Gould for doing him previous regent Lisa Levin had humiliated over what he called “children’s language”.

This “old boys club,” as Rose calls it in her report, has been around too long and has done too much damage. Friday’s meeting will be an indication of whether the regents are ready to make the necessary reforms.

Part of the board of directors did the right thing – eventually – by finally answering calls from Regents John T. Moran and Amy Carvalho to hold the meeting. The inclusion in the calendar required the approval of at least five board members.

The next step in cleaning up the system is now to select board members who will not be accused of having dirty hands.