Here is a list of the current members of the Nevada Board of Regents in alphabetical order:
- Arrascada, Joseph
- Brooks, Byron
- Boylan, Patrick
- Brager, Susan
- Brown, Heather
- Carvalho, Amy
- Cruz-Crawford, Michelee
- DelCarlo, Carol
- Downs, Jeffrey
- Goodman, Stephanie
- McMichael, Donald
- Perkins, Laura
- Tarkanian, Lois
If you haven't already noticed, let me point out that the all but four of the current regents have last names that begin with one of the first four letters of the alphabet. You may chuckle and believe this is just some curious coincidence. It's not.
In 2016, NSHE insiders were shocked when Michael Wixom; by all accounts an extremely effective regent with deep knowledge and consensus-building skills within the Board and the Legislature; was defeated in the race for his second term by Patrick Carter, who subsequently chose not to run for reelection due to a scandal along with another member of the BOR class of 2016, Cathy McAdoo. When the election happened, I facetiously suggested it was because the electorate doesn't know the difference between the candidates, so they pick the first name on the list. Since C comes before W, Carter it is.
It happened again in 2020 (kinda). Kevin Melcher, who served as a regent from the Elko area until he termed out, retired from his job there and moved back to his hometown, Reno, where he decided to run again in a different district. Melcher was known inside NSHE as a pleasant, easy-going individual who, like Wixom, was very effective. Despite his experience and positive reputation among his peers, Melcher was defeated by Joe Arrascada in the general election, defying conventional wisdom that the candidate with prior experience would win. Admittedly, some voters may have felt Melcher was attempting an end-run around the spirit of the term-limits law, but given my other observations about regent elections, I don't think the general electorate knew or cared. A comes before M.
I made a bet with a friend in 2022 that I could predict the outcome of all the BOR races. He took my bet and, on November 9, I was one bottle of wine richer simply because I picked the first name alphabetically on the list in each race, even if it meant betting against an incumbent. It wasn't just dumb luck.
In the last twenty years, out of 36 Board of Regents elections listed on the Nevada Secretary of State's website where the candidate did not run unopposed, 30 races went to the candidate whose name came first alphabetically. While I'm no statistician, that's gotta be somewhere around an 83.33% probability rate and a deviation not even a parent can love.
Of course, none of this means that a regent's qualifications have anything at all to do with where their last name falls on the alphabet. In my experience, for example, Regent Arrascada is just as congenial and open-minded as former Regent Melcher. Time will tell how successful he is in this role. And while a surname may provide a strong familial indication of an individual's qualities and talents, the first letter of the surname means nothing. Nonetheless, that first letter appears to largely define the probability of success in regents elections in Nevada.
All this begs the question, is an elected Board of Regents really an effective Board of Regents if members of the voting public don't know or care about the differences between Candidate A and Candidate Z? I certainly don't mean to imply that the public is dumb. I just believe they have bigger issues on their minds. Perhaps Henry Kissinger was right when he said, “The reason that university politics is so vicious is because the stakes are so small,” since many things that appear to be extinction level events to NSHE insiders barely register as a blip on the radar of everyday Nevadans. But things that dramatically affect the lives of rank and file employees can't seem to break through the noise of the self-inflicted drama at the top of the NSHE food chain.
Compound that with Nevada's unique brand of electoral quirkiness. In a state where a dead pimp can be elected to the legislature, it's not unrealistic that Patrick Carter would have won reelection had he chosen to run again, unless of course, his opponent's last name is Aaron. Checkmate.
So, what's a state to do as it once again considers restructuring the moribund Nevada Board of Regents? Like the quixotic salary schedules that guaranteed a dynamic and engaged workforce through rewards based on merit, the promise of regents being more effective or responsive because the voters are watching is a bust. I guess savvy candidates can always change their names to Abrams, Adams, or Ackerman before throwing their hats in the ring. On the plus side, if both candidates on the ballot are named Abernathy, I suppose there would be at least a 50-50 chance that the most qualified would be elected.
Other, more traditional options include switching to a Board that's fully-appointed by the governor, or a hybrid with some members elected and others appointed. Outside NSHE, there appears to be a universal acceptance that the Board needs be smaller; nine members instead of 13 (who settled on that number in Nevada?).
I've worked in a system where the Board is appointed by the governor. No system is perfect, but in ruby-red Utah, safeguards are built in to ensure no single governor or party can exert too much influence over the Board. For example, the governor's party holds only a one seat majority among the regents. The appointees, by and large, are already very successful (read: campaign donors) who get their egos stroked in their personal empires and don't have as great a need to engage in the brinksmanship and posturing that we find among our citizen regents. But make no mistake, challenges exist in that system, too. Imagine the clash of corporate CEO egos when their business interests, unrelated to the Board's function, collide.
Perhaps the hybrid model is not so far-fetched. A smaller body of elected regents would require those who are elected to represent a much more broad based constituency, and balance needs on a systemic level rather than a local one. It may even help rein in the north-south rivalry. The body of appointed regents may also expand the perspective of the Board. On the other hand, it could also be a flaming catastrophe. I don't know what I don't know.
And therein lies a problem. We have a pretty good idea what it is legislators wish to rid themselves of when it comes to the Board. It's not so clear what they have in mind for afterward, or if they are committed to preserving the bedrock principles--academic freedom, shared governance, tenure--that are necessary for a dynamic and successful system of higher education.
Nonetheless, as hearings begin for SJR7, the legislation to remove the Board of Regents from its lofty perch in the Nevada Constitution, we really need to be considering what a post-NSHE world would look like if, after long-last, the proponents of such legislation actually succeed this time.
Comments
Post a Comment