Editorial: Aiming for the messenger

University regents last week held a pity party, wringing their hands and blaming the Review-Journal for backing them into a corner over the controversy surrounding system chancellor Dan Klaich.

Among other transgressions, Mr Klaich misled lawmakers in 2012 as they pondered changes to the state’s higher education funding formula. That revelation didn’t go over well with a number of past and present legislators. The issue was reported in a series of stories by this newspaper’s Bethany Barnes.

But in drawing their pistols to shoot the messenger, board members only continued to exhibit the dysfunction that has plagued the panel for decades. Rather than address the substance of Mr. Klaich’s behavior, the regents seemed more concerned that the shenanigans had ever been revealed in the first place and put them in a bad spot.

In the end, they cut the long-time system employee a sweetheart deal, allowing him to “retire” early next month while still collecting his $303,000 salary — along with generous car and housing allowances — through June of 2017. Safe to say no regent should hope to run for re-election as a shining steward of taxpayer interests.

Assemblyman Stephen Silberkraus, a Henderson Republican, posed the obvious question. “If they believe the chancellor was doing so great, then why did they accept his resignation?” he asked.

The answer isn’t comforting: Too many regents are more concerned with political optics and featherbedding than with substantively addressing the issues that confront the state’s universities and community colleges.

Ironcially, the board’s inertia, inaction or incompetence — call it what you will — may trigger positive change, as lawmakers now push to re-examine the university system’s governance in the 2017 upcoming session. It’s long overdue.

“Legislature’s can’t legislate, the governor can’t govern, when these types of antics are being played,” former lawmaker Steven Horsford said last month. “If this shows anything,” he continued about the Klaich controversy, “it shows that the Legislature is not in charge. If anything they’re being used as tools. That has to change.”

Yes, indeed.