Regents’ next steps will give voters a sense of their fitness to serve

The regents should be on notice that they’ll be watched closely Friday. The board has a long-established reputation for sweeping accusations of wrongdoing among themselves and high-level administrators under the rug, and of condoning discriminatory behavior toward women.

When the Nevada Board of Regents meets Friday to select new officers in the wake of two hostile-workplace complaints filed against board members, it’s imperative they do this:

Pick two people who haven’t been accused of inappropriate behavior, and let them lead the board as the complaints are investigated.

With Chair Cathy Mcadoo and Vice Chair Patrick Carter having stepped down from their officer positions while Chancellor Melody Rose’s complaint against them is investigated, the regents must ensure that their replacements have no conflicts of interest stemming from her accusations or the complaint filed by Truckee Meadows Community College President Karin Hilgersom.

Sources tell the Sun that Hilgersom made her accusations against one current regent and one former member of the board, neither of whom she identified by name. However, sources who are familiar with the complaint believe the regents can surmise the identity of the current regent based on Hilgersom’s description.

Therefore, this regent most likely knows he’s the focus of Hilgersom’s complaint, as do his colleagues. Given the situation, the regent should decline to be considered for the officer roles. If he doesn’t, the other regents should disregard him as a choice for the positions.

Whomever takes over for Mcadoo and Carter must be free of similar accusations.

Given that the chair and vice chair have significant authority in choosing and prioritizing the board’s business, it would be completely inappropriate for someone who’s named in an active complaint to have a hand in steering the board.

Meanwhile, Mcadoo and Carter should either abstain from voting on the interim chair and vice chair or, if possible, be blocked from doing so. They shouldn’t have a say — it creates a possibility that they’d choose someone who would protect them from the accusations.

The regents owe it to everyone in the higher education system, and to the Nevada voters who elected them, to ensure that the complaints by Rose and Hilgersom are investigated completely free of interference by the board.

There are serious issues involved here. Rose accuses Mcadoo and Carter of discriminating against her based on gender, berating and demeaning her, undermining her authority and committing ethical and code-of-conduct violations in an orchestrated attempt to oust her. Hilgersom’s complaint reportedly contains similar accusations.

We’re reasonably certain that the regents wouldn’t be stupid enough to replace their officers with someone else who’s been accused of such behavior, and risk going through this mess over leadership again. The system, in which the chancellor normally works with the chair and vice chair to set the regents’ agenda, reportedly has been paralyzed since Rose lodged her complaint in early October. With Mcadoo and Carter holding onto their positions, communications with the chancellor broke down and effective oversight went out the window. All three regents meetings that were on the calendar between early October and Friday’s special meeting were either canceled or postponed.

Now it’s time to restore order, by choosing new officers who are unbiased, not named in these complaints, and can work with Rose to maintain operations as the independent investigation takes place. There are 10 other regents to choose from.

The regents should be on notice that they’ll be watched closely Friday. The board has a long-established reputation for sweeping accusations of wrongdoing among themselves and high-level administrators under the rug, and of condoning discriminatory behavior toward women.

Examples of this are abundant, such as the rehiring of an administrator who’d been fired after a whistleblower reported him for watching pornography and masturbating in his office, and the regents’ failure to reprimand their former special counsel, Dean Gould, for demeaning former Regent Lisa Levin over engaging in what he called “child-speak.”

This “old boys’ club,” as Rose calls it in her report, has existed too long and done too much damage. Friday’s meeting will be an indication of whether the regents are willing to make the necessary reforms.

A portion of the board did the right thing — eventually — by finally heeding calls by Regents John T. Moran and Amy Carvalho to hold the meeting. Getting it on the calendar required consent from at least five members of the board.

Now, the next step in cleaning up the system is to select board officers who aren’t accused of having dirty hands.