April 8, 2022 • 30 mins
Shouting, interruptions and threats marked a heated meeting of the Board of Regents on April first. The regents are the Nevada System of Higher Education’s governing board.
They met to approve a $610,000 severance with Chancellor Melody Rose.
Rose wanted to leave her position as chancellor after she filed a voluminous complaint against certain regents.
Regents argued and interrupted one another during the meeting. They ultimately approved the severance.
Rose had only been in the position since June of 2020
On this week’s episode is a breakdown of the April 1 regents meeting. I also speak with a University of Nevada faculty member, Amy Pason, about Nevada’s higher education system. We get her perspective on what happened with the regents, and what’s in the wake of the resignation of Chancellor Melody Rose.
Listen to this show Sundays at 8:30 a.m. on KWNK 97.7 FM, Reno's community radio station: https://kwnkradio.org/thisisreno/
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Unknown (00:01):
She'll be fine. She's gonna go on like most of the
other people that are fired andpushed out by this by this
group, why this organization tosuccess elsewhere, most of the
folks we don't have space for aroom for here and NCCIH move on
to to to careers and otherinstitutions that are highly
(00:23):
respected.
I will not be supporting thismotion. And I asked that the
lawyers off stand down, bring ina mediate mediator or a
psychologist and resolve ourissues and move forward.
The question our facultyare still talking, I get my 10
rules. I can ask for a question.
Yes.
(00:47):
Faculty andstaff are watching. Shouting
interruptions and threats markeda heated meeting of the Board of
Regents on April 1, the regentsor the Nevada System of Higher
Education governing board, theymet to approve a $610,000
severance with their Chancellormelody Rose. Rose wanted to
leave her position as Chancellorafter she filed a voluminous
(01:08):
complaint against certainregions. The meeting was marked
by discord. The regions arguedand interrupted one another
during the meeting. Theyultimately approved the
severance and Rose only had beenin the position since June of
2020. I am your host Bob Conradwith this is reno.com.
(01:43):
On this week's episode, we speakwith the University of Nevada
faculty member about Nevada'shigher education system. We get
her perspective on what happenedwith the Board of Regents and
what's coming next. The hourlong regents meeting was marked
by rude behavior from theregion's public commenters
(02:04):
chastise the board. And someregions made impassioned pleas
for the rest of the board to gettheir act together. The board
hired attorney Bill Peterson tonegotiate the settlement between
the board and rows. And thenduring the discussions going
back and forth about that itbecame fairly clear between the
attorneys involved in thatprocess, that it really wasn't
(02:26):
everybody's best interest atthat point in time for the there
didn't seem to be much of afuture basically for the two
sides being the Board of Regentsand the Chancellor to to
separate and go their own ways.
And at that point in time thechancellor offered up her
resignation. And that thatproposal was basically
(02:48):
negotiated back and forthbetween the parties, principally
me and the Chancellor's Council,Regent John Moran of Las Vegas
question why Rose was nevergiven an evaluation?
Was there ever an opportunity tosit with the chancellor to talk
about the good things that shewas doing? And then also was
there also an opportunity tospeak constructively possible
(03:12):
constructive criticism into thethings that perhaps she could do
better or that we wanted her todo differently? And so I'm just
trying to understand was shegiven the opportunity of a one
year review and was thatcompleted,
she was given the opportunityfor a one one year review.
That's Board Chair region, KathyMcAdoo, McAdoo was one of the
(03:35):
subject of roses complaint shefiled last year.
However, she filed the claim onOctober 4, the one year review
was due in September, and thedirection from general counsel
for inchie was for me to stopthe review. And I don't know if
(03:56):
I remember the exact date thatthe investigation was concluded.
It seems like it was February 4,but I'm not positive that that
was the date. That was myresponsibility to do the
evaluation starting inSeptember. And I did get all the
interviews scheduled and I beganthose on October 4. When Chief
(04:22):
Counsel general Reynolds calledme to read the told me that
there would be an internalgrievance filed against me, and
that I needed to stop thereview.
Regent Patrick Boylaninterrupted the conversation.
Madam Chair, according toRobert's Rules, Vice Chair
(04:44):
excuse me, so may i Madam Chair.
According to my remarks, ViceChair is supposed to
this prompted McAdoo to recessthe meeting just a
moment just a moment. We'retaking a recess.
back from recess, Morancontinued his comments.
(05:04):
We are the drivers of workforcedevelopment and we have failed
tremendously. We have failedourselves as well. And that's
really the most disappointingfor me. We must know our
responsibilities as regions. Andwe need to start staying in our
(05:26):
own lanes. This meddling andmicromanagement in the business
of our top brass or ourpresidents is absolutely and
unequivocally unproductive.
Region. Boylan, then said rowshould have been fired,
presumably for filing thecomplaint.
(05:47):
Let's just get it done. I'm notin favor of $600,000 for one
person just leaving us and onthe basis of how it happened. In
the private industry, she wouldhave been fired the first days
for what she did,Regent Carroll del Carlo
chastise the board.
And the five plus years I'vebeen on this board. Today, I
(06:09):
have to say I'm ashamed to be aregion and sit here and consider
this motion. This is a travesty,and a total failure of
leadership of this board. Weconducted a national search. We
paid handsomely for a searchconsultant. And we unanimously
selected our new chancellor, allin the midst of an unprecedented
(06:33):
worldwide pandemic, that at thispoint, had no vaccine. What a
way to come into a new positionwhen you can't even bring people
together and have meetings. Thisisn't about our own
glorification, and egos. This isabout helping our Nevada
students receive education andtraining to be productive wage
(06:55):
earners and members of society.
How is this motion helping ourstudents? Now we have 1000s of
employees, including faculty andstaff, and What message are we
sending to them that members ofthe board couldn't work out our
differences?
At this point, Boylan repeatedlyinterrupted del Carlo? Call for
(07:18):
the disruption? And what aboutcabinet and staff? And even
President? That's important, theChancellor and the work? Are
they the next ones on thechopping block? How much anxiety
is out there with all ourdysfunction? Don't you realize
(07:40):
that we're being watched, andnot just in the US, but all over
the world? I will not besupporting this motion. And I
asked that the lawyers off standdown, bring in a mediator,
mediator or a psychologist andresolve our issues and move
forward.
The question ourfaculty are still talking. I get
my 10.
(08:04):
I can ask for a question. Yes.
Faculty and staff are watchingall but for the regents voted to
approve the severance agreement.
I spoke with Dr. Amy Payson ofthe University of Nevada Reno,
about the chancellor in Nevada'shigher education system.
(08:25):
And I'm an Associate Professorof Communication Studies. But
for the past two years, I'veserved as U N RS Faculty Senate
chair, and this year I serve asthe chair of chairs, or overall
the representative for all ofthe system chairs in NC. So when
I started my chair term as forour faculty senate was when we
were going through the hiringprocess for the chancellor. So
(08:48):
really, I've been meeting withher in our monthly meetings with
other senators since she startedon the job. And I can say that,
you know, from the chair theperspective of the Senate
chairs, we have had no problemswith the chancellor and working
with her. She's always been openwith us open to discuss issues
this past year and my role asthe the chair of chairs, you
(09:12):
know, even having more one onone conversations with her when
hotter ticket items were comingup on the board agenda so that
she made sure that we wereunderstanding where those items
came from, how to work throughthat process. And you know,
especially with her backgroundand being a faculty member, a
university president and achancellor in another system,
(09:32):
that she had experience andknowledge and perspective of all
those different levels. So thechairs always felt that our
views as faculty were beingrespected, that she made efforts
to make sure that faculty andstudent leader voices were
included, even as we're goingthrough the starting phases of
planning our biennial budget forexample, she specifically
(09:53):
requested that the Presidentsmake sure that the students in
the faculty had parts in thatpresentation to her So, you
know, overall, we were excitedto work with Chancellor rose and
are disappointed that, that shefelt that she had to resign.
Can you speak a bit about thatand what happened from your
perspective?
(10:15):
So we didn't have a lot ofinformation on the chairs and of
knowing what happened. Weobviously were aware of the
hostile work environmentcomplaints that, you know, it
was widely publicized. But atleast in terms of our
interactions with her, she nevermentioned any of those issues.
She never let those issues getin the way of her just working
(10:37):
on the tasks and addressing ourour concerns and moving forward
policy. So it came as much of asurprise, I think, is anybody
else to see that board agendacome out that included the
separation agreement?
And you have some concerns aboutwhat happened at the meeting? If
I recollect on Twitter, you Isaw a couple tweets?
(11:00):
Yeah, I mean, I think it justwhat we heard from that meeting
was that this seemed to be avery rushed, get this on on the
board agenda. It seems like fromwhat I heard in the meeting,
that some of the regions wereunavailable to discuss things
beforehand, or weren't part ofsome of the initial discussions
that led up to it. And you know,so again, having a meeting when
(11:22):
the chancellor couldn't even bethere, because she was out of
town and, and that most of theregions had to not even be in
present, they had to be remotebecause of how quickly it seemed
to be going through. I thinkthat just states, you know, that
this wasn't mutually agreed uponthing that this seemed to be
really rushed at a time where Ithink that that's not really
(11:44):
what we need in our system rightnow.
And being a student of highereducation administration, I've
noticed a ongoing pattern withNCCIH. Of let's just say, for
lack of a better term, chronicdysfunction. For decades now,
(12:07):
what what is your take on that?
I mean, I think we have toseparate what happens at the
Board of Regents electedrepresentative issue from the
system office itself. And Ithink that's also where
sometimes legislators don'treally try to separate the two,
they just assume that theregents are indicative of what's
(12:27):
happening at the systemgenerally. So as far as you
know, the chancellor's office inthe Chancellor's cabinet, I
think that we do have a lot ofsmart and talented people who
are working for the best of oureducation. And we've seen some
great strides in terms of howwe're improving actual education
with initiatives that come outof the chancellor's office. So
(12:48):
working with all the campuses tomake sure that a student who
starts at a community collegecan transfer into a four year
institution and not lose anytimewhen they graduate. I mean, I
think that was a big lift of allof our institutions. But it's
one of those things that helpsmake education better in our
system, by working with oneanother in terms of trying to
coordinate working with lessresources, which we always have
(13:10):
to do with shared services.
That's another thing that wehave to work together as a
system. And so the chancellor'soffice, the Chancellor's
cabinet, are working in thosebest interest. So again, when
the dysfunction side, I thinkcomes a lot from the region side
of things, electedrepresentatives, which some of
them are great, knowledgeable,willing to learn others, not as
much, from what we can see. Andso when elected representatives
(13:35):
have some of their personalissues, or what they would like
to see, that's not necessarilyin the best interest. I think
that's where the divides and thedysfunction comes from.
And I would add to or, you know,maybe share your thoughts on on
this, but it's a 13 memberboard. And I don't know about
(13:58):
you, I've served on boards thatcurrently serve on two boards.
13 is a very high number for aboard, especially for a system
that is so complex and diverseas NCCIH. And it seems to me, a
(14:19):
lot of the issues that havearisen over the years are
somewhat attributable to that.
The fact that it is a prettylarge and unwieldy board, but
also like you mentioned, youknow, it only takes a few
regions to kind of derailprocesses and good governance
for perhaps the advancement oftheir own agendas, or whatever
(14:41):
the case may be. What What areyour thoughts on that?
Yeah, you know, I haven't givenmuch thought in terms of the
number on the board and again,how those districts are set up
or the the logic behind thosedistricts I'm not 100% Sure on
so I can't speak to that. Youknow, but certainly more regents
(15:02):
less regents having a differentsystem or setup. I don't know if
that's that can correctproblems. I think you're either
gonna have good electedofficials are good appointees or
you're not. And it's a sad daywhen those that do take on this
responsibility, don't upholdthat obligation to ensure that
our system is stable and thatthey're really doing it in the
(15:25):
interest of educating Nevadans.
Do you personally or maybe as afaculty member, or faculty chair
of chairs have any opinion as tothe structure of NCCIH and how
its governed? I know, lastelection 2020, we had the q1
(15:45):
ballot question that really, inmy opinion, sought to kind of
address some of these issues.
Yeah, so you know, with thatquestion, one issue, I think
there's arguments on both sides,should we have the board be
elected as it is now, I thinkthere's benefits to having an
(16:08):
elected board. They'renonpartisan in theory positions,
and that there's just supposedto be focused on ensuring that
our system is sound, and theyhave a fiduciary responsibility.
And so in that respect, I thinkthat it's a benefit to have the
elected system that we do. Andhopefully people are electing
(16:29):
folks who really do have thebest interest of the system in
mind, we can see lots ofexamples across the country of
attacks on tenure, of look atWyoming of defunding the gender
studies programs because ofpolitical and partisan events.
And so I think the fear withhaving obtained changing our
(16:50):
elected system as we have it nowis that it kind of opens that
door to potentially partisanappointees on that board. And
what partisan appointees mightdo on on our board will affect
our campuses. And And again,they could be wanting to push in
things like we see in otherstates that would be detrimental
to education altogether. Youknow, on the flip side of that,
(17:14):
having elected officials and youknow, I think we have a lot of
more competitive races, thistime around in terms of those
open region seats, where in thepast, we haven't, so if it's not
a really competitive race, itmay be just the person that
decided to sign up for it forwhatever reason, they wanted to
sign up to be a region thatdon't have knowledge background,
(17:34):
or the best interests of oureducation in mind. So I can see
it going in either way. Not thatour legislature doesn't have a
power and authority and has donequite a bit to do some
legislation related to highereducation. So certainly, we're
still going to have to battlesome of those partisan issues at
(17:54):
the state legislature. But youknow, hopefully, we don't have
to do those same battles withour board, as I've seen in other
states, and I've talked toSenate chairs from other states
who have to fight those fightsas well.
Great, thank you. I appreciatethat. I my personal opinion on
q1 is that while a while wellintentioned, it was not great
(18:15):
policy. And the way it wasdrafted. I believe there's a
another one coming down theline. As it assembly journal
resolution.
SJR. Seven, yeah.
JR seven? Yeah. Senate journalresolution. Is that Is that the
correct phrase?
I think so. Yeah, yeah. Okay.
Yeah, that's gonna, I guess,kind of re address some of these
(18:38):
issues. Do you? Are you? Areyou? Do you have an opinion on
that? Or?
Yeah, so I mean, as chair sevenis really very similar to what
question one was, so it's nowgoing back through the
legislative process. So it wasvoted and approved on this last
legislative session, we'reexpecting to see it in this
upcoming legislative session tobe voted on again, and then
(18:59):
we'll see it on the ballot. Soit really is rehashing the same
question, one issue. And I thinkthe the piece that is unclear
and is not very transparent withthose that are proposing it is
what they really want, as theoutcome. So removing the Board
of Regents from theConstitution, just to say that
(19:20):
any kind of governance structuremight be proposed. I mean, they
can kind of do that already,since that's sort of under their
purview. Some of the additionallanguage industry or seven was,
I think, a little bit more tothe name to audit needing to be
more aware of our finances andall of our budgets, which they
currently are. So, you know, itseems a little bit more that the
(19:42):
motivation is addressingpersonal issues with with
regions past and potentiallypresidents that legislators
didn't work with. Well, but Ithink the problem on that bill
is that there is no plan for thefuture. What is the intention?
Do they intend to the thenpropose appointed boards, do
they intend to not have a systemaltogether? And just have Board
(20:06):
of Trustees for individualinstitutions? If there's
legislators that are, you know,big fans of UNLV? Versus you and
or is that kind of the northsouth divide that we might see,
as next steps are what happensnext? And so that's what
legislators haven't talkedabout. And that's what we're
really skeptical on, on whythey're, they're really pushing
(20:26):
this forward. When, you know,again, I think some of our our
problems stem from electedrepresentatives on our board
that just maybe shouldn't be onour board anymore. And we can
work that out, not with a wholeoverhaul of our Constitution.
Well, to be fair, though, Imean, some some of those issues
have been at the system level orthe system office level, five,
(20:50):
six years ago with Klaich, andwhat he was alleged to have done
in terms of misleadinglegislators with a report. So I,
you know, I guess in fairness towhat I've heard from
legislators, some of that doescome from the system level. So
it's not just the electeds aswell.
And again, that's, you know,sometimes you get bad employees,
(21:11):
even at your Chancellor level.
And again, we have got processesto deal with those, as well.
But, again, rewritingconstitution seems like a big
step to try to deal withmanagement issues.
Well, let's step back to alittle bit. I mean, Chancellor,
Melody rose from my impression,and at least from, you know,
some some of the folks I'vespoken with, she was pretty
(21:33):
widely regarded as being apretty, pretty great chancellor.
I mean, you know, she was widelyrespected, considered by the
governor and others to be agreat leader. And she lasted 20
months, what happened?
I mean, as far as we can tell,and again, I think this has been
(21:54):
publicly reported now is that,you know, she clearly worked
well with region to Brava. Andin Region del, Carla, when they
were chair and vice chair in herfirst year, it didn't see any of
these problems with movingthings forward on the agenda.
You know, her first yearobviously, is we're still
working through COVID. Workingwith those that chair and vice
(22:14):
chair, no problems, lots ofmeetings is we had to have lots
of meetings for all the thingsthat were happening all at once.
So it really just seems that thethe problem started to stem with
the new board leadership thatwas elected. And I think a lot
of it is that, you know, tryingto do health and safety policy
(22:34):
in regards to COVID,unfortunately, got very
politicized across our country.
And that does seem to in fact,what happened in what we saw on
the board of regents as well. SoI think, you know, a lot of the
the tensions were just really onus all trying to handle our
first pandemic and figure outwhat was the best policy
forward, and miscommunication ordifferences of opinion in the
(22:57):
steps that we were takingbetween board leadership between
the Chancellor and the systemoffice working with the campuses
that seem to be the theFlashpoint, which is very
unfortunate, because I don'tthink anybody should be their
job, depending on how we handledsomething that was unprecedented
altogether.
(23:19):
Well, yeah, and I mean, Iwatched that meeting last week.
That was, that was just gross.
What happened in the way thatwas handled? And, and past
meetings. I've also heard this,in my opinion, shocking.
Statements from certain regions,like one I seem to recall was
(23:42):
something along the lines of,well, we want our own science to
make these decisions, where'sour where's our experts and I
and really the subtext of thatseem to be, we want people to
come in and say that COVID is ahoax or masks don't work. Those
kinds of things. I mean, that'snot how science works.
(24:07):
Yeah. And in that moment, alsoto discredit one of our faculty
who has been working with thegovernor's office, Dr. Brian
laevis, who, you know, that Ithink when region, Carvalho was
leading that meeting, I thinkshe did an amazing job of
facilitating that discussion.
And I think she did an amazingjob of making sure that she was
pointing to and having Dr.
(24:30):
llevas presents on on the facts,right, so many who has been
dealing with the data day to daybecause we've been dealing with
it day to day. So yeah, to havea reagent who, you know, didn't
know why all of the Presidentsall the faculty senate, it's all
of the students, all of our exmedical experts in our
institutions. Were saying onething and wanting to hear a
(24:52):
different opinion and notbelieving us was really
disheartening. And that I thinkhas characterized a lot of how
we've moved forward with haveCOVID policies in this
particular year, which again,didn't have a problem than the
previous year in in just doingthe things that we knew to be
safe.
Yeah, and talk a bit about whathappened at that meeting last
(25:13):
week.
In terms of the, with thechancer,
the way that whole discussionwas handled. I mean, it was.
Yeah, again, I think it was.
Yeah. I kept my mask on, becauseI think my facial expressions
would have given me away a bittoo much during that meeting,
but I think, you know, I thinkthere were some really good
(25:35):
points raised in terms of seeingthat, you know, again, behind
the scenes, what we were hearingis that mediations were not
successful, but you need allparties being willing to
mediate. And if that broke down,because parties were not willing
to have that discussion, youknow, that that's pointing to
some dysfunction, that have someregions wanting to call up for a
(25:56):
personnel session in the midstof of this kind of turmoil,
which, you know, again, would bea public kind of question and
answer, you know, if, if I werethe chancellor, and my choice
was between a public personnelsession of them voting on if I
could still be employed versusresigning and saving myself that
trouble, I mean, we canunderstand why she would have to
(26:18):
make that choice, which was not,you know, totally voluntary, if
you think in that respect. So,you know, if we were really
thinking about what would begood management in terms of
trying to navigate personalityconflicts, policy conflicts, you
know, trying to have a combat inpublic just doesn't seem to be
(26:38):
the best use of our time andresources, and really has thrown
our system and up in the air forno reason other than they should
have just been able to talkthrough it work it out. This is
what we do all the time, in ourown organizations. So
any predictions moving forward?
(26:59):
Well, I think we're just stilltrying to figure out what the
next steps are. So the ShermanAct to you is going to be
meeting with the Senate chairsand meeting with the presidents
to get input, really, the boardwill have a decision on if they
want to appoint somebody to bean Acting Chancellor for the
time being, and then that wouldinstigate a search and running
(27:24):
that again, in someindeterminate time. Or if there
may be somebody that would serveas an interim chancellor of
which that's a slightly morepermanent type of setup in terms
of they could have a contract ofone to three years, that person
could then be appointed and orthe board choose a national
cert. So there's a lot ofdifferent pathways that we can
(27:45):
take. And I think on the chairside, we're just trying to
figure out who might be somebodythat we can pull to be an Acting
Chancellor or an interimchancellor. Because, you know,
as we've been going through lotsof leadership changes at all of
our institutions, newpresidents, so on and so forth.
It's not like we have a lot offolks to pull from and pulling,
say, a president from oneinstitution means that they now
(28:07):
have a leadership hole thatthey'll have to try to figure
out how to manage when again,we're kind of down in staffing
altogether, across our campuseswith budget cuts. So So yeah, so
that's that's pretty much theopen question is, who is who is
out there? That would be good tolead our system. And I think on
our end, we're, you know, we'restarting that legislative
session right now, in terms ofgetting started. So not having a
(28:30):
leader at the table and tryingto find somebody who's going to
build those relationshipsquickly just puts us at a
disadvantage.
Well, can we nominate you?
Ah, we'll see. We'll see.
I'm only half joking. But yeah,it's a it's a bit of a
(28:52):
precarious position. I think.
So. Anything else you want toadd before we close out today?
And thank you so much, by theway?
Yeah, I mean, I think you know,just another note and shout out
to legislators, those that areon the ballot, those that are
continuing on in their positionsis don't forget about higher
education. I know it's reallyeasy to assume that we're we're
(29:13):
doing fine and you can cut ourbudgets call you want but we do
have a lot of faculty who areworking hard taking over two or
three jobs because of vacanciesthat we have to just try to
manage the cuts that we stillare reeling from from the last
legislative session andrestoring our budgets is key.
Just making us whole would do alot, especially in this time of
(29:35):
instability.
Excellent. Well, thank you somuch. I appreciate your time
today.
Thanks for having me.
This is Reno I'm Bob Conrad,please visit us online at this
(29:59):
is Reno dot Calm
She'll be fine. She's gonna go on like most of the
other people that are fired andpushed out by this by this
group, why this organization tosuccess elsewhere, most of the
folks we don't have space for aroom for here and NCCIH move on
to to to careers and otherinstitutions that are highly
(00:23):
respected.
I will not be supporting thismotion. And I asked that the
lawyers off stand down, bring ina mediate mediator or a
psychologist and resolve ourissues and move forward.
The question our facultyare still talking, I get my 10
rules. I can ask for a question.
Yes.
(00:47):
Faculty andstaff are watching. Shouting
interruptions and threats markeda heated meeting of the Board of
Regents on April 1, the regentsor the Nevada System of Higher
Education governing board, theymet to approve a $610,000
severance with their Chancellormelody Rose. Rose wanted to
leave her position as Chancellorafter she filed a voluminous
(01:08):
complaint against certainregions. The meeting was marked
by discord. The regions arguedand interrupted one another
during the meeting. Theyultimately approved the
severance and Rose only had beenin the position since June of
2020. I am your host Bob Conradwith this is reno.com.
(01:43):
On this week's episode, we speakwith the University of Nevada
faculty member about Nevada'shigher education system. We get
her perspective on what happenedwith the Board of Regents and
what's coming next. The hourlong regents meeting was marked
by rude behavior from theregion's public commenters
(02:04):
chastise the board. And someregions made impassioned pleas
for the rest of the board to gettheir act together. The board
hired attorney Bill Peterson tonegotiate the settlement between
the board and rows. And thenduring the discussions going
back and forth about that itbecame fairly clear between the
attorneys involved in thatprocess, that it really wasn't
(02:26):
everybody's best interest atthat point in time for the there
didn't seem to be much of afuture basically for the two
sides being the Board of Regentsand the Chancellor to to
separate and go their own ways.
And at that point in time thechancellor offered up her
resignation. And that thatproposal was basically
(02:48):
negotiated back and forthbetween the parties, principally
me and the Chancellor's Council,Regent John Moran of Las Vegas
question why Rose was nevergiven an evaluation?
Was there ever an opportunity tosit with the chancellor to talk
about the good things that shewas doing? And then also was
there also an opportunity tospeak constructively possible
(03:12):
constructive criticism into thethings that perhaps she could do
better or that we wanted her todo differently? And so I'm just
trying to understand was shegiven the opportunity of a one
year review and was thatcompleted,
she was given the opportunityfor a one one year review.
That's Board Chair region, KathyMcAdoo, McAdoo was one of the
(03:35):
subject of roses complaint shefiled last year.
However, she filed the claim onOctober 4, the one year review
was due in September, and thedirection from general counsel
for inchie was for me to stopthe review. And I don't know if
(03:56):
I remember the exact date thatthe investigation was concluded.
It seems like it was February 4,but I'm not positive that that
was the date. That was myresponsibility to do the
evaluation starting inSeptember. And I did get all the
interviews scheduled and I beganthose on October 4. When Chief
(04:22):
Counsel general Reynolds calledme to read the told me that
there would be an internalgrievance filed against me, and
that I needed to stop thereview.
Regent Patrick Boylaninterrupted the conversation.
Madam Chair, according toRobert's Rules, Vice Chair
(04:44):
excuse me, so may i Madam Chair.
According to my remarks, ViceChair is supposed to
this prompted McAdoo to recessthe meeting just a
moment just a moment. We'retaking a recess.
back from recess, Morancontinued his comments.
(05:04):
We are the drivers of workforcedevelopment and we have failed
tremendously. We have failedourselves as well. And that's
really the most disappointingfor me. We must know our
responsibilities as regions. Andwe need to start staying in our
(05:26):
own lanes. This meddling andmicromanagement in the business
of our top brass or ourpresidents is absolutely and
unequivocally unproductive.
Region. Boylan, then said rowshould have been fired,
presumably for filing thecomplaint.
(05:47):
Let's just get it done. I'm notin favor of $600,000 for one
person just leaving us and onthe basis of how it happened. In
the private industry, she wouldhave been fired the first days
for what she did,Regent Carroll del Carlo
chastise the board.
And the five plus years I'vebeen on this board. Today, I
(06:09):
have to say I'm ashamed to be aregion and sit here and consider
this motion. This is a travesty,and a total failure of
leadership of this board. Weconducted a national search. We
paid handsomely for a searchconsultant. And we unanimously
selected our new chancellor, allin the midst of an unprecedented
(06:33):
worldwide pandemic, that at thispoint, had no vaccine. What a
way to come into a new positionwhen you can't even bring people
together and have meetings. Thisisn't about our own
glorification, and egos. This isabout helping our Nevada
students receive education andtraining to be productive wage
(06:55):
earners and members of society.
How is this motion helping ourstudents? Now we have 1000s of
employees, including faculty andstaff, and What message are we
sending to them that members ofthe board couldn't work out our
differences?
At this point, Boylan repeatedlyinterrupted del Carlo? Call for
(07:18):
the disruption? And what aboutcabinet and staff? And even
President? That's important, theChancellor and the work? Are
they the next ones on thechopping block? How much anxiety
is out there with all ourdysfunction? Don't you realize
(07:40):
that we're being watched, andnot just in the US, but all over
the world? I will not besupporting this motion. And I
asked that the lawyers off standdown, bring in a mediator,
mediator or a psychologist andresolve our issues and move
forward.
The question ourfaculty are still talking. I get
my 10.
(08:04):
I can ask for a question. Yes.
Faculty and staff are watchingall but for the regents voted to
approve the severance agreement.
I spoke with Dr. Amy Payson ofthe University of Nevada Reno,
about the chancellor in Nevada'shigher education system.
(08:25):
And I'm an Associate Professorof Communication Studies. But
for the past two years, I'veserved as U N RS Faculty Senate
chair, and this year I serve asthe chair of chairs, or overall
the representative for all ofthe system chairs in NC. So when
I started my chair term as forour faculty senate was when we
were going through the hiringprocess for the chancellor. So
(08:48):
really, I've been meeting withher in our monthly meetings with
other senators since she startedon the job. And I can say that,
you know, from the chair theperspective of the Senate
chairs, we have had no problemswith the chancellor and working
with her. She's always been openwith us open to discuss issues
this past year and my role asthe the chair of chairs, you
(09:12):
know, even having more one onone conversations with her when
hotter ticket items were comingup on the board agenda so that
she made sure that we wereunderstanding where those items
came from, how to work throughthat process. And you know,
especially with her backgroundand being a faculty member, a
university president and achancellor in another system,
(09:32):
that she had experience andknowledge and perspective of all
those different levels. So thechairs always felt that our
views as faculty were beingrespected, that she made efforts
to make sure that faculty andstudent leader voices were
included, even as we're goingthrough the starting phases of
planning our biennial budget forexample, she specifically
(09:53):
requested that the Presidentsmake sure that the students in
the faculty had parts in thatpresentation to her So, you
know, overall, we were excitedto work with Chancellor rose and
are disappointed that, that shefelt that she had to resign.
Can you speak a bit about thatand what happened from your
perspective?
(10:15):
So we didn't have a lot ofinformation on the chairs and of
knowing what happened. Weobviously were aware of the
hostile work environmentcomplaints that, you know, it
was widely publicized. But atleast in terms of our
interactions with her, she nevermentioned any of those issues.
She never let those issues getin the way of her just working
(10:37):
on the tasks and addressing ourour concerns and moving forward
policy. So it came as much of asurprise, I think, is anybody
else to see that board agendacome out that included the
separation agreement?
And you have some concerns aboutwhat happened at the meeting? If
I recollect on Twitter, you Isaw a couple tweets?
(11:00):
Yeah, I mean, I think it justwhat we heard from that meeting
was that this seemed to be avery rushed, get this on on the
board agenda. It seems like fromwhat I heard in the meeting,
that some of the regions wereunavailable to discuss things
beforehand, or weren't part ofsome of the initial discussions
that led up to it. And you know,so again, having a meeting when
(11:22):
the chancellor couldn't even bethere, because she was out of
town and, and that most of theregions had to not even be in
present, they had to be remotebecause of how quickly it seemed
to be going through. I thinkthat just states, you know, that
this wasn't mutually agreed uponthing that this seemed to be
really rushed at a time where Ithink that that's not really
(11:44):
what we need in our system rightnow.
And being a student of highereducation administration, I've
noticed a ongoing pattern withNCCIH. Of let's just say, for
lack of a better term, chronicdysfunction. For decades now,
(12:07):
what what is your take on that?
I mean, I think we have toseparate what happens at the
Board of Regents electedrepresentative issue from the
system office itself. And Ithink that's also where
sometimes legislators don'treally try to separate the two,
they just assume that theregents are indicative of what's
(12:27):
happening at the systemgenerally. So as far as you
know, the chancellor's office inthe Chancellor's cabinet, I
think that we do have a lot ofsmart and talented people who
are working for the best of oureducation. And we've seen some
great strides in terms of howwe're improving actual education
with initiatives that come outof the chancellor's office. So
(12:48):
working with all the campuses tomake sure that a student who
starts at a community collegecan transfer into a four year
institution and not lose anytimewhen they graduate. I mean, I
think that was a big lift of allof our institutions. But it's
one of those things that helpsmake education better in our
system, by working with oneanother in terms of trying to
coordinate working with lessresources, which we always have
(13:10):
to do with shared services.
That's another thing that wehave to work together as a
system. And so the chancellor'soffice, the Chancellor's
cabinet, are working in thosebest interest. So again, when
the dysfunction side, I thinkcomes a lot from the region side
of things, electedrepresentatives, which some of
them are great, knowledgeable,willing to learn others, not as
much, from what we can see. Andso when elected representatives
(13:35):
have some of their personalissues, or what they would like
to see, that's not necessarilyin the best interest. I think
that's where the divides and thedysfunction comes from.
And I would add to or, you know,maybe share your thoughts on on
this, but it's a 13 memberboard. And I don't know about
(13:58):
you, I've served on boards thatcurrently serve on two boards.
13 is a very high number for aboard, especially for a system
that is so complex and diverseas NCCIH. And it seems to me, a
(14:19):
lot of the issues that havearisen over the years are
somewhat attributable to that.
The fact that it is a prettylarge and unwieldy board, but
also like you mentioned, youknow, it only takes a few
regions to kind of derailprocesses and good governance
for perhaps the advancement oftheir own agendas, or whatever
(14:41):
the case may be. What What areyour thoughts on that?
Yeah, you know, I haven't givenmuch thought in terms of the
number on the board and again,how those districts are set up
or the the logic behind thosedistricts I'm not 100% Sure on
so I can't speak to that. Youknow, but certainly more regents
(15:02):
less regents having a differentsystem or setup. I don't know if
that's that can correctproblems. I think you're either
gonna have good electedofficials are good appointees or
you're not. And it's a sad daywhen those that do take on this
responsibility, don't upholdthat obligation to ensure that
our system is stable and thatthey're really doing it in the
(15:25):
interest of educating Nevadans.
Do you personally or maybe as afaculty member, or faculty chair
of chairs have any opinion as tothe structure of NCCIH and how
its governed? I know, lastelection 2020, we had the q1
(15:45):
ballot question that really, inmy opinion, sought to kind of
address some of these issues.
Yeah, so you know, with thatquestion, one issue, I think
there's arguments on both sides,should we have the board be
elected as it is now, I thinkthere's benefits to having an
(16:08):
elected board. They'renonpartisan in theory positions,
and that there's just supposedto be focused on ensuring that
our system is sound, and theyhave a fiduciary responsibility.
And so in that respect, I thinkthat it's a benefit to have the
elected system that we do. Andhopefully people are electing
(16:29):
folks who really do have thebest interest of the system in
mind, we can see lots ofexamples across the country of
attacks on tenure, of look atWyoming of defunding the gender
studies programs because ofpolitical and partisan events.
And so I think the fear withhaving obtained changing our
(16:50):
elected system as we have it nowis that it kind of opens that
door to potentially partisanappointees on that board. And
what partisan appointees mightdo on on our board will affect
our campuses. And And again,they could be wanting to push in
things like we see in otherstates that would be detrimental
to education altogether. Youknow, on the flip side of that,
(17:14):
having elected officials and youknow, I think we have a lot of
more competitive races, thistime around in terms of those
open region seats, where in thepast, we haven't, so if it's not
a really competitive race, itmay be just the person that
decided to sign up for it forwhatever reason, they wanted to
sign up to be a region thatdon't have knowledge background,
(17:34):
or the best interests of oureducation in mind. So I can see
it going in either way. Not thatour legislature doesn't have a
power and authority and has donequite a bit to do some
legislation related to highereducation. So certainly, we're
still going to have to battlesome of those partisan issues at
(17:54):
the state legislature. But youknow, hopefully, we don't have
to do those same battles withour board, as I've seen in other
states, and I've talked toSenate chairs from other states
who have to fight those fightsas well.
Great, thank you. I appreciatethat. I my personal opinion on
q1 is that while a while wellintentioned, it was not great
(18:15):
policy. And the way it wasdrafted. I believe there's a
another one coming down theline. As it assembly journal
resolution.
SJR. Seven, yeah.
JR seven? Yeah. Senate journalresolution. Is that Is that the
correct phrase?
I think so. Yeah, yeah. Okay.
Yeah, that's gonna, I guess,kind of re address some of these
(18:38):
issues. Do you? Are you? Areyou? Do you have an opinion on
that? Or?
Yeah, so I mean, as chair sevenis really very similar to what
question one was, so it's nowgoing back through the
legislative process. So it wasvoted and approved on this last
legislative session, we'reexpecting to see it in this
upcoming legislative session tobe voted on again, and then
(18:59):
we'll see it on the ballot. Soit really is rehashing the same
question, one issue. And I thinkthe the piece that is unclear
and is not very transparent withthose that are proposing it is
what they really want, as theoutcome. So removing the Board
of Regents from theConstitution, just to say that
(19:20):
any kind of governance structuremight be proposed. I mean, they
can kind of do that already,since that's sort of under their
purview. Some of the additionallanguage industry or seven was,
I think, a little bit more tothe name to audit needing to be
more aware of our finances andall of our budgets, which they
currently are. So, you know, itseems a little bit more that the
(19:42):
motivation is addressingpersonal issues with with
regions past and potentiallypresidents that legislators
didn't work with. Well, but Ithink the problem on that bill
is that there is no plan for thefuture. What is the intention?
Do they intend to the thenpropose appointed boards, do
they intend to not have a systemaltogether? And just have Board
(20:06):
of Trustees for individualinstitutions? If there's
legislators that are, you know,big fans of UNLV? Versus you and
or is that kind of the northsouth divide that we might see,
as next steps are what happensnext? And so that's what
legislators haven't talkedabout. And that's what we're
really skeptical on, on whythey're, they're really pushing
(20:26):
this forward. When, you know,again, I think some of our our
problems stem from electedrepresentatives on our board
that just maybe shouldn't be onour board anymore. And we can
work that out, not with a wholeoverhaul of our Constitution.
Well, to be fair, though, Imean, some some of those issues
have been at the system level orthe system office level, five,
(20:50):
six years ago with Klaich, andwhat he was alleged to have done
in terms of misleadinglegislators with a report. So I,
you know, I guess in fairness towhat I've heard from
legislators, some of that doescome from the system level. So
it's not just the electeds aswell.
And again, that's, you know,sometimes you get bad employees,
(21:11):
even at your Chancellor level.
And again, we have got processesto deal with those, as well.
But, again, rewritingconstitution seems like a big
step to try to deal withmanagement issues.
Well, let's step back to alittle bit. I mean, Chancellor,
Melody rose from my impression,and at least from, you know,
some some of the folks I'vespoken with, she was pretty
(21:33):
widely regarded as being apretty, pretty great chancellor.
I mean, you know, she was widelyrespected, considered by the
governor and others to be agreat leader. And she lasted 20
months, what happened?
I mean, as far as we can tell,and again, I think this has been
(21:54):
publicly reported now is that,you know, she clearly worked
well with region to Brava. Andin Region del, Carla, when they
were chair and vice chair in herfirst year, it didn't see any of
these problems with movingthings forward on the agenda.
You know, her first yearobviously, is we're still
working through COVID. Workingwith those that chair and vice
(22:14):
chair, no problems, lots ofmeetings is we had to have lots
of meetings for all the thingsthat were happening all at once.
So it really just seems that thethe problem started to stem with
the new board leadership thatwas elected. And I think a lot
of it is that, you know, tryingto do health and safety policy
(22:34):
in regards to COVID,unfortunately, got very
politicized across our country.
And that does seem to in fact,what happened in what we saw on
the board of regents as well. SoI think, you know, a lot of the
the tensions were just really onus all trying to handle our
first pandemic and figure outwhat was the best policy
forward, and miscommunication ordifferences of opinion in the
(22:57):
steps that we were takingbetween board leadership between
the Chancellor and the systemoffice working with the campuses
that seem to be the theFlashpoint, which is very
unfortunate, because I don'tthink anybody should be their
job, depending on how we handledsomething that was unprecedented
altogether.
(23:19):
Well, yeah, and I mean, Iwatched that meeting last week.
That was, that was just gross.
What happened in the way thatwas handled? And, and past
meetings. I've also heard this,in my opinion, shocking.
Statements from certain regions,like one I seem to recall was
(23:42):
something along the lines of,well, we want our own science to
make these decisions, where'sour where's our experts and I
and really the subtext of thatseem to be, we want people to
come in and say that COVID is ahoax or masks don't work. Those
kinds of things. I mean, that'snot how science works.
(24:07):
Yeah. And in that moment, alsoto discredit one of our faculty
who has been working with thegovernor's office, Dr. Brian
laevis, who, you know, that Ithink when region, Carvalho was
leading that meeting, I thinkshe did an amazing job of
facilitating that discussion.
And I think she did an amazingjob of making sure that she was
pointing to and having Dr.
(24:30):
llevas presents on on the facts,right, so many who has been
dealing with the data day to daybecause we've been dealing with
it day to day. So yeah, to havea reagent who, you know, didn't
know why all of the Presidentsall the faculty senate, it's all
of the students, all of our exmedical experts in our
institutions. Were saying onething and wanting to hear a
(24:52):
different opinion and notbelieving us was really
disheartening. And that I thinkhas characterized a lot of how
we've moved forward with haveCOVID policies in this
particular year, which again,didn't have a problem than the
previous year in in just doingthe things that we knew to be
safe.
Yeah, and talk a bit about whathappened at that meeting last
(25:13):
week.
In terms of the, with thechancer,
the way that whole discussionwas handled. I mean, it was.
Yeah, again, I think it was.
Yeah. I kept my mask on, becauseI think my facial expressions
would have given me away a bittoo much during that meeting,
but I think, you know, I thinkthere were some really good
(25:35):
points raised in terms of seeingthat, you know, again, behind
the scenes, what we were hearingis that mediations were not
successful, but you need allparties being willing to
mediate. And if that broke down,because parties were not willing
to have that discussion, youknow, that that's pointing to
some dysfunction, that have someregions wanting to call up for a
(25:56):
personnel session in the midstof of this kind of turmoil,
which, you know, again, would bea public kind of question and
answer, you know, if, if I werethe chancellor, and my choice
was between a public personnelsession of them voting on if I
could still be employed versusresigning and saving myself that
trouble, I mean, we canunderstand why she would have to
(26:18):
make that choice, which was not,you know, totally voluntary, if
you think in that respect. So,you know, if we were really
thinking about what would begood management in terms of
trying to navigate personalityconflicts, policy conflicts, you
know, trying to have a combat inpublic just doesn't seem to be
(26:38):
the best use of our time andresources, and really has thrown
our system and up in the air forno reason other than they should
have just been able to talkthrough it work it out. This is
what we do all the time, in ourown organizations. So
any predictions moving forward?
(26:59):
Well, I think we're just stilltrying to figure out what the
next steps are. So the ShermanAct to you is going to be
meeting with the Senate chairsand meeting with the presidents
to get input, really, the boardwill have a decision on if they
want to appoint somebody to bean Acting Chancellor for the
time being, and then that wouldinstigate a search and running
(27:24):
that again, in someindeterminate time. Or if there
may be somebody that would serveas an interim chancellor of
which that's a slightly morepermanent type of setup in terms
of they could have a contract ofone to three years, that person
could then be appointed and orthe board choose a national
cert. So there's a lot ofdifferent pathways that we can
(27:45):
take. And I think on the chairside, we're just trying to
figure out who might be somebodythat we can pull to be an Acting
Chancellor or an interimchancellor. Because, you know,
as we've been going through lotsof leadership changes at all of
our institutions, newpresidents, so on and so forth.
It's not like we have a lot offolks to pull from and pulling,
say, a president from oneinstitution means that they now
(28:07):
have a leadership hole thatthey'll have to try to figure
out how to manage when again,we're kind of down in staffing
altogether, across our campuseswith budget cuts. So So yeah, so
that's that's pretty much theopen question is, who is who is
out there? That would be good tolead our system. And I think on
our end, we're, you know, we'restarting that legislative
session right now, in terms ofgetting started. So not having a
(28:30):
leader at the table and tryingto find somebody who's going to
build those relationshipsquickly just puts us at a
disadvantage.
Well, can we nominate you?
Ah, we'll see. We'll see.
I'm only half joking. But yeah,it's a it's a bit of a
(28:52):
precarious position. I think.
So. Anything else you want toadd before we close out today?
And thank you so much, by theway?
Yeah, I mean, I think you know,just another note and shout out
to legislators, those that areon the ballot, those that are
continuing on in their positionsis don't forget about higher
education. I know it's reallyeasy to assume that we're we're
(29:13):
doing fine and you can cut ourbudgets call you want but we do
have a lot of faculty who areworking hard taking over two or
three jobs because of vacanciesthat we have to just try to
manage the cuts that we stillare reeling from from the last
legislative session andrestoring our budgets is key.
Just making us whole would do alot, especially in this time of
(29:35):
instability.
Excellent. Well, thank you somuch. I appreciate your time
today.
Thanks for having me.
This is Reno I'm Bob Conrad,please visit us online at this
(29:59):
is Reno dot Calm
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.