The Nevada Board of Regents acted appropriately in bringing in an independent investigator to examine Chancellor Melody Rose’s complaint against the board chair and vice chair.
Now, though, the regents must ensure that the law firm it hired for the investigation can go about its work free of any manipulation by the board — especially any meddling by Chair Cathy McAdoo and Vice Chair Patrick Carter, the only two regents named by Rose in her allegations.
Rose’s complaint, filed this month, contains serious accusations against McAdoo and Carter which, if true, reveal that the two displayed a pattern of abusing their authority and trying to improperly influence others. Rose, the chancellor since September 2020, accused the two of undermining her authority, micromanaging her, discriminating against her based on gender, and committing numerous ethics and code-of-conduct violations in what she described as an orchestrated attempt to oust her.
No such behavior can be allowed to happen in the investigation into Rose’s complaint. The regents must watch and listen closely for any sign of interference — not just from McAdoo and Carter, but by any of the board’s 13 members — and blow the whistle if any problems arise.
Ideally, McAdoo and Carter would step down from their chair and vice chair positions during the course of the probe, as Regent John T. Moran requested shortly after Rose lodged her complaint and then demanded Friday in a follow-up message to McAdoo and Carter.
But the two officers have given no indication they’ll relinquish those roles. Instead, they issued a statement saying the regents were “committed to having a thorough investigation conducted.”
Meanwhile, a call by Moran for a board vote to force McAdoo and Carter out of their officer spots has gone unheeded by Moran’s counterparts. Except for Moran and Regent Amy Carvalho, who called for a special meeting to discuss the best way to proceed but fell short of supporting the vote on the officers, the regents have either declined to publicly comment on the issue or issued standard statements saying it’s inappropriate for them to comment on personnel matters.
By all appearances, it seems the majority of the regents will maintain the board at status quo until the investigation is complete. Worse yet, the Sun learned late last week that a closed meeting has been scheduled for Wednesday for the regents and their counsel to discuss the situation. Although Nevada’s open meetings act allows for such meetings to be held in private, it’s disconcerting that the regents have yet to schedule a public discussion of the situation, at least to talk about board operations during the investigation.
This lack of transparency is par for the course for the regents, unfortunately, who have a history of handling instances of bad behavior behind closed doors and out of sight. They’re old pros at sweeping problems under the rug and refusing to hold each other accountable.
They’re displaying appallingly poor leadership in this case, as it leaves Rose still reporting to the same two individuals she accuses of bullying and discriminating against her.
It also raises questions about how the board and administration will continue to operate.
Under the higher ed oversight structure, the regents act in a capacity similar to a school board in a K-12 school district, with the chancellor being similar to a school superintendent in this comparison. In the case of higher ed, the chancellor works closely with the board chair and vice chair in setting agendas and determining the board’s business.
But how is Rose supposed to work for or with regents who allow what she describes as a hostile work environment? And we’re not talking just the chair and vice chair, but all regents who by their inaction condone making someone work in a situation that she contends is toxic.
Surely a majority of the regents couldn’t be in favor of forcing Rose to function like this. Are they circling the wagons and hoping she goes away?
Rose doesn’t strike us as someone who will run when the going gets tough. But with a couple of notable exceptions, the regents seem afraid to act. What message does that send to young people whom we are trying to educate about leadership and responsibility?
This message can’t be stated loudly enough to all 13 members of the regents: You owe it to Rose and to the people of Nevada, who elected you, to conduct a comprehensive and fully independent investigation into the allegations and to release the findings to the public.
Nevadans deserve a board of regents that operates transparently and with full accountability, but with far too few exceptions the board members have wiped their feet on those obligations over the years.
Rose’s allegations echo those of others who’ve blown the whistle on systemic problems within the higher education oversight structure over the years.
Occasionally, this bad behavior has been revealed, such as when the regents and former Chancellor Thom Reilly hounded out popular UNLV President Len Jessup amid overblown accusations of mismanagement and an ethics complaint so insubstantial that Jessup’s next employer, the prestigious Claremont Graduate University, brushed it aside in snatching up Jessup immediately after he left UNLV.
Other accusations similar to Rose’s involve a pattern of gender bias and sexual harassment, such as a former NSHE staff member revealing that the system had rehired one of her male colleagues who’d been let go after she reported him for watching pornography in his office and masturbating loudly at his desk.
There are many more accusations, but you get the point. In a term Rose used in her complaint, the higher ed oversight structure is an “old boys’ club” where aberrant behavior has been tolerated and even swept under the rug.
Now, amid a new set of allegations, the public will not tolerate this “more of the same” pattern with the regents. Rose deserves fair treatment, and Nevadans deserve to know whether her accusations are true. Nothing short of a fully independent investigation and a release of the report will suffice.