EDITORIAL: A UNLV dust-up involving President Len Jessup

Goodness knows there have been plenty of reasons over the years to question the competency and performance of the regents who oversee Nevada’s system of higher education. The panel has long been hampered by a penchant for secrecy, backroom politics, mediocrity and regional parochialism, among other things.

As recently as 2017, state lawmakers threatened a number of reforms to promote increased accountability, including proposals to restructure the system and to give the Legislature more power over the regents.

But it seems rather odd that some local factions are now blaming the regents for the current dust-up involving UNLV President Len Jessup.

Rumors began circulating recently that Mr. Jessup was looking for another job, prompting one high-profile donor to rescind a $14 million gift. Some of his vocal backers responded by blasting certain regents for not adequately supporting Mr. Jessup and creating a climate intended to hasten his departure.

Perhaps lost in all the finger-pointing, though, is the fact that this controversy comes just two months after Mr. Jessup received a less-than-stellar performance evaluation from new university system Chancellor Thom Reilly. The details of the review remain confidential. But Mr. Reilly issued a statement, “Specifically, I informed him of my concerns with UNLV’s operational deficiencies and how those problems were an impediment to achieve our shared strategic goals, including recognition as a top-tier research institution.”

This is significant, and it doesn’t have anything to do with the regents.

On Tuesday, Mr. Reilly announced the creation of a COO for UNLV, apparently to take the load off Mr. Jessup while he addresses the issues raised in his evaluation. The details of the new position remain murky — and Mr. Jessup, not surprisingly, has been muted in his reaction.

Mr. Jessup, who has two years left on a five-year deal, is certainly free to look out for his own career. But no regent has called for his resignation, and the panel’s chair said last week that he has no intention of holding a meeting to discuss the president’s future. In fact, the evaluation process is ongoing — Mr. Reilly plans to create a four-person committee to interview students and faculty members — and will culminate later this year in a public report regarding Mr. Jessup’s performance that will be available for review.

Let’s allow the process to run its course. Once the regents — and the public — have access to the final report, there will be plenty of time to argue about the proper course of action.