EDITORIAL: Withholding critical report betrayed public trust

The first rule of empire building: No one can challenge the greatness and wisdom of the empire.

As political empires go, few state institutions rival the Nevada System of Higher Education. Devoid of accountability and protected by impenetrable walls that surround its ivory towers, NSHE has long perpetuated North-South inequities and easily deflected criticism from business leaders and marauding fiscal conservatives who’ve dared to ask, “What in the world do all those six-figure suits do?”

Why, they man the catapults, archer towers and boiling oil cauldrons, of course!

Above all else, Chancellor Dan Klaich is committed to defending his empire, regardless of its inefficiencies. Last year, when lawmakers, local governments and the business community were advancing a dialogue on how Nevada’s governance of community colleges could be improved, Mr. Klaich whitewashed a commissioned review that was highly critical of the bureaucracy that sits atop the state’s public colleges and universities.

As reported Sunday by the Review-Journal’s Bethany Barnes in a copyrighted story, NSHE emails obtained under the state’s public records law show Mr. Klaich marshaled his forces and had the report rewritten and withheld from elected members of the Board of Regents (the body that is supposed to oversee the system), lawmakers and the taxpayers who paid for it.

Mr. Klaich did this amid a vitally important public policy debate in which all sides agreed that the Nevada System of Higher Education, which is charging ever more money for diplomas of ever shrinking rigor and value in the post-recession job market, had to do better to help the state attract more investment, create more opportunity and diversify its economy. State leaders were especially interested in making two-year colleges more nimble through more localized control — a governance model that’s common across America.

Which is to say Mr. Klaich would be stripped of authority over community colleges. And wouldn’t you know it, the report from the Colorado-based National Center for Higher Education Management Systems was sympathetic to arguments for a radical overhaul of NSHE. The system “faces a major challenge of addressing policy issues across all missions from the universities to the community colleges,” the report said.

No one can challenge the greatness and wisdom of the empire.

So instead of honoring the public trust inherent in his position and presenting those findings, Mr. Klaich suppressed them. Instead of looking out for the public’s interest, he and his staff looked out for their own.

“If I were the LV Metro Chamber I would be licking my chops and sending a thank you note,” Mr. Klaich wrote in an email.

“I say we just take what we like out of the report and do away with the rest,” Constance Brooks, vice chancellor for government and community affairs, wrote in an email.

That’s exactly what Mr. Klaich did. The report was pared back to four pages of pablum.

“I like it. I think it is believable,” Mr. Klaich subsequently wrote. “You could draw attention to things that would be more positive for the NSHE, but I think that would call independence (of the researchers) into question.”

What independence? Instead of standing by its report, the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems waved a white flag and gave Mr. Klaich what he wanted: a puff piece that became an internal document.

The tactics worked. In part because no regents and no lawmakers on an interim committee ever got a glimpse of the original report and its findings, NSHE’s control over community colleges was preserved.

Mr. Klaich answers to the Board of Regents — in theory, at least. No doubt, some regents shared Mr. Klaich’s desire to preserve NSHE’s control of community colleges. The authority of regents would have been reduced as well if such a governance change occurred. But Mr. Klaich’s behavior here smacks of insubordination. Did he for one moment consider whether his bosses, who answer directly to the people, might have wanted to see that report? Because at least some of them sure are anxious to see it now.

“Let’s hear that opinion,” said Las Vegas Regent Mark Doubrava. “We paid for it!”

Amen, Dr. Doubrava.

It’s clear that regents have given Mr. Klaich too much leash for too long. On Thursday, Board of Regents Chairman Rick Trachok said outside experts would be retained to investigate Mr. Klaich’s conduct. That’s fine, but are more consultants really necessary to determine whether the chancellor’s actions were wrong? If nothing else, he squandered an undetermined amount of money.

Beyond that, regents need to institute new policies requiring their approval of all outside consultant reports and the public release of all publicly funded reviews — and all versions of those reports, especially if they challenge the greatness and wisdom of the empire. And regents should have a lot of tough questions for Mr. Klaich at their next meeting.

How many other reports has he kept from them and the public? And what else is he not being completely forthcoming about?