Members of Nevada Legislature want constitutional change to Board of Regents
CARSON CITY — Members of the Legislature concerned about questionable actions by some members of the Board of Regents advocated for major changes to higher education governance in a hearing Thursday in front of an Assembly Committee.
Assemblyman Elliot Anderson, D-Las Vegas, and state Sen. Joyce Woodhouse, D-Henderson, presented the Nevada Higher Education Reform Act to the Assembly Legislative Operations and Elections Committee.
A critical piece of the proposal is a constitutional amendment, Assembly Joint Resolution 5, which would remove references to the Board of Regents from the constitution and instead put the board’s legal authority over the Nevada System of Higher Education in state law.
Anderson said the intent is not to change the role of the Board of Regents but to make it a statutory body to bring higher education governance into the modern era. The change would make the board more accountable to the Legislature, he said.
AJR5 would have to pass the Legislature twice, this session and again in 2019, and then be approved by a vote of the people in 2020, before the changes could occur.
Anderson said there is no intent to change the board to appointed positions. Elections to the board by Nevada voters would continue, he said.
But regents expressed concern that putting the board under state law could lead to the end of elections for the positions by the actions of a future Legislature.
The Board of Regents on Thursday voted at its meeting 12-1 to oppose the measure.
PAST ISSUES CITED
As justification for the proposed changes, Anderson cited a Las Vegas Review-Journal article published in April 2016 showing that the Board of Regents stymied efforts by an interim legislative committee in 2012 to redo the higher education funding formula.
Woodhouse said it is critical that the Legislature gets accurate information from the board and higher education system to create a culture of accountability to lawmakers and the public.
The act, which will come in separate legislation, proposes several goals, including a requirement that campus presidents have the authority to present their budgets directly to the Board of Regents and the Legislature, bypassing the chancellor’s office. Presidents would also be hired and fired by the board,.
It would also support whistleblower protections for system employees and allow for a full investigation of the malfeasance brought to light by the 2016 Review-Journal story.
PLAYING POLITICS
Regent Allison Stephens said the board would lose its independence and would be subject to political whims with the passage of AJR5. Regent Cedric Crear agreed in comments at the board meeting.
“I do believe it will turn into more of a political process than it is now,” Crear said. “I don’t think the Legislature really has the time and the energy to properly oversee higher education. I think the students and the community will suffer if this happens.”
Committee Chairwoman Olivia Diaz, D-North Las Vegas, took offense at the suggestion that lawmakers can’t do their jobs properly because of the politics of the process. Diaz said the 2012 funding study involved dishonesty from higher education representatives who kept information from lawmakers.
Regent Trevor Hayes was the only regent to voice his support of the proposed change at the Regents meeting.
Hayes said he believes the board should be smaller, and that the members should be appointed and paid.
Compensation, he said, would allow the regents more time to focus on the issues of higher education, rather than treating it as a side job.
Hayes said if it passes the Legislature this session, the board could create a fact-finding committee to present both pros and cons.
“We would have a more educated decisions to take to the Legislature the next time,” he said.
The Review-Journal’s Natalie Bruzda contributed to this report. Contact Sean Whaley at swhaley@reviewjournal.com or 775-461-3820. Follow @seanw801 on Twitter.
