Regents reject firing proposal

RENO -- If it was a power grab orchestrated by some members of the Board of Regents aimed at the authority of Chancellor Jim Rogers, the take was small after all was said and done.

Proposals to take away the authority of the chancellor of the state's higher education system -- both to fire presidents and to create new positions on his own staff without regent approval -- failed to win support Friday.

The board, on a 10-3 vote, did support compromise language to require the chancellor to consult with the chairman of the Board of Regents before taking an action to remove a president.

Regent Steve Sisolak opposed the original proposal giving the power to fire presidents to the board as well as the compromise language, saying it would be viewed as a move by the board to weaken Rogers' power. Such a move would send a bad message to the public, he said.

The change to the bylaws required a supermajority of at least nine of the 13 regents.

Also voting no were regents Mark Alden and Cedric Crear.

Crear said he was not aware of any justification for the change.

Alden said the system is just like a large company with a chief executive officer and board of directors. A single person has to be in charge, he said.

Advocating the change was Regent Ron Knecht, who said there was no personal agenda aimed at Rogers. The issue was about balancing the powers of the chancellor and the board, he said.

"Mr. Chancellor, I guarantee, for me, for this regent, this isn't personal," he said.

Regent Howard Rosenberg also supported the original proposal, saying it is the responsibility of the Board of Regents to hire and fire college presidents.

But Rogers said he viewed the original proposal on firing presidents as a personal challenge to his authority.

When he arrived on the job, Rogers said no one was in charge, and political games were being played out among the eight campus presidents and 13 regents.

The Board of Regents has a reputation for hiring strong chancellors when the system is having problems, and moving to hire weak executives when times are good, he said.

If the board moved to weaken the powers of the chancellor, regardless of who was in the position, it would end up with an executive who was nothing more than a coordinator who could not solve problems when they arose, Rogers said.

Such a move would, "destroy much of the progress" that has been made in the higher education system in recent years, he said.

Rogers said he would never fire a campus president as a knee jerk reaction to some incident. Nor would he move to replace a president without first consulting with the board chairman, he said.

After the votes, Rogers said he was amused to hear Knecht say his motivation for the changes was not personal.

"Because it is personal," he said.

A handful of regents have tried on different occasions to pressure him to quit, Rogers said.

The change to the bylaws requiring consultation with the chairman of the board is modest and just puts into writing what Rogers said he already does. When making decisions about the system, Rogers said he consults with the chairman as a matter of course.