With Jessup’s future in doubt, instability returns to UNLV
The future stability of UNLV is in question after the announcement that the university’s president might be on his way out the door.
Len Jessup announced Wednesday that he’s looking for other opportunities amid criticism of his performance by some higher education officials. Jessup said the governance structure of the state’s university system is a hindrance to long-term sustainability — for “any president.”
Jessup, who recently finished his third year at UNLV, is the university’s fifth president in 12 years.
“There seems to be a whole ton of instability,” said Assemblyman Elliot Anderson, D-Las Vegas. “From the outside, it appears like a circus. You don’t have someone staying long term with a long-term vision that can improve and manage the university’s affairs.”
Carol Harter — who was president for 11 years — left UNLV in 2006. She was followed by David Ashley, who served as president for three years before being fired. After Ashley came Neal Smatresk, who served for more than four years until 2014. Don Snyder followed as acting president for a year until Jessup took over.
“That’s a very short average tenure,” said Scott Jaschik, editor of Inside Higher Ed.
By comparison, Marc Johnson has been president of the University of Nevada, Reno for nearly six years — and he received a three-year contract extension from the regents in June.
“The presidents of UNR have had a much longer duration,” Anderson said. “Why does UNLV have so much turnover of presidents and not UNR? Is this a regional thing happening here? It’s very confusing to me. It always seems to be people who are getting fired from UNLV, or deciding to leave UNLV.”
Same page
Jaschik said that in order for a president to be successful at a large, public university like UNLV, the individual has to learn the environment, set a vision, come up with an agenda and execute it.
“It’s hard to do that in four years,” he said.
It’s also crucial, Jaschik said, for a president to have support from most of the board. While some public controversy is OK, he said, the board and the president must be on the same page on the big issues.
Jessup, 56, came under fire at a Board of Regents meeting for the rising cost of UNLV’s new medical school. Regents also have questioned the university’s handling of its dental school and a dentist who reused a single-use dental implant device on patients.
This week, the Las Vegas Review-Journal learned Jessup might have violated state ethics law when he signed a $14 million donor agreement that included a provision requiring him to remain in his position through 2022.
He signed this agreement on Feb. 7 — nine days after he had a meeting with Thom Reilly, chancellor of the Nevada System of Higher Education, regarding his performance evaluation. In the evaluation, Reilly found “several weaknesses” in Jessup’s job performance that required “immediate improvement,” according to a memo from the Kamer Zucker Abbott law firm.
“Controversies of the day can do in a president,” Jaschik said. “Ultimately, the president isn’t monitoring how many times a device is used, but a president is hiring deans who are in turn hiring people who oversee things.”
But some people think the Board of Regents isn’t doing a good job, either.
Kris Engelstad McGarry, a trustee of the Engelstad Family Foundation, said the foundation pulled its $14 million donation toward UNLV’s medical school building in light of Jessup’s decision to leave the university, saying she doesn’t trust the board to be good stewards of the foundation’s money.
“They are micro-managers,” she said. “They’re looking to use this as a springboard to a higher office. Some of them don’t have the credentials to be sitting there at all. I feel I distrust groups that have closed-door meetings and then come out and grandstand.”
She said the board should give university presidents “some leeway” in making mistakes without having their hands slapped in public and believes the governance structure of the Board of Regents should be changed to having members be appointed, rather than elected.
“They (UNLV) have touted they wanted to do better for many, many years, and we finally are,” Engelstad McGarry said. “My real fear is that it’s going to get set back for another 10 years.”
Constitutional change
Anderson has sought changes to the board’s governance structure. During the 2017 session, Anderson introduced a constitutional amendment to remove the Board of Regents from the state constitution and empower the Legislature to write laws to govern the Nevada System of Higher Education.
“We can’t begin to have a serious discussion about higher education reform as long as the Board of Regents continues to have constitutional standing,” he said. “We need to try something else.”
Anderson said it also might be a good idea to look at the size of the 13-member board, to ensure there are not “too many cooks in the kitchen.”
Bill Paulos, a basketball booster at UNLV, had stronger words for the board.
“I think the regents system is an absolute joke,” Paulos said. “I think it’s political. I think it’s North versus some of the South, and some of the South is not supportive of the South. It should be for all. In my opinion — I’ve been associated with UNLV for the last 50 years and closely aligned the last five — they’re disingenuous.”
Tom Jingoli, a Board of Trustees member and Board of Directors member for UNLV’s hotel and law schools, respectively, said Jessup has not been treated fairly.
“I thought Len did a very good job under very difficult circumstances,” Jingoli said. “It’s a toxic environment between the Nevada Board of Regents and the university. I don’t think Len Jessup got a fair shake from the day he walked in the door there. Half the regents are from the North and don’t want to see him succeed. They don’t want UNLV’s medical school to succeed. They want UNLV to be a failure. Quite frankly, we have people from the South who want to see the North fail.”
Regent Rick Trachok, of Reno, said he didn’t think it would be appropriate for him to comment at this time.
Regent Patrick Carter agreed that there are a lot of opinions circulating on what people say is a North/South divide — or a UNR vs. UNLV divide — within the system and among the regents.
“UNR is a very established school,” Carter said. “If you compare the way UNLV and UNR do things, they are different, but I don’t necessarily perceive a bias between the two. Just as many southern regents provide feedback to UNLV as northern regents at our meetings.”
Las Vegas Regent Trevor Hayes, a UNLV alumnus, said those who point fingers at the regents should consider what motive any regent would have to single out one president or school.
“The regents are 13 unpaid, elected citizens who volunteer hundreds of hours each year to try improve our state,” Hayes said. “All 13 regents have lived in Nevada for more than 10 years, with 12 having lived here more than 20 years. Ten of the regents graduated from a Nevada public college or university. Throughout this process, the regents and chancellor have acted with integrity and placed the well-being of UNLV, the Nevada System of Higher Education, and Nevada residents at the forefront of their actions.”
Harming the state’s reputation
Regardless of who’s to blame, however, Anderson said the lack of stability hurts the national reputation of Nevada. He also believes it’s going to be difficult to recruit a solid career professional for the UNLV presidency once the board has to mount a national search.
“This is going to hurt our ability to attract a qualified higher-education leader,” said Anderson, who’s not seeking re-election this year. “No matter who’s to blame, or who’s in the wrong, to the outside, we look like we’re not a serious place to come and have a career, and to manage the university.”
Jaschik said Jessup’s job could be appealing, but candidates will have several questions.
“People are going to want to know if they have a chance to succeed,” he said. “My guess is that a candidate is going to want to know if the board is united, and whether or not they back a certain kind of leadership.”
Las Vegas Regent Mark Doubrava said his message to people, in particular potential donors to the medical school, is that they should have confidence in the board, especially because that body voted to make way for the medical school in June 2013.
“If you don’t like the system, then work to change the system,” Doubrava said. “The regents have an obligation to govern and oversee the institutions. I’ll be happy to get out of the way when my elected term expires in 2022.”
Contact Natalie Bruzda at nbruzda@reviewjournal.com or 702-477-3897. Follow @NatalieBruzda on Twitter. Review-Journal staff writers Ed Graney and Mark Anderson contributed to this report.
