It’s not always easy to determine who’s running the show at Nevada’s largest university these days. Certainly some of UNLV’s approximately 28,000 students are a little confused.
“I know I write my tuition checks to them,” says senior David Ahern, 25, of the Board of Regents, the statewide body elected to oversee Nevada’s higher education system, including UNLV.
Freshman Claire Shelton’s knowledge doesn’t even extend that far — sort of. The 18-year-old says of the Board of Regents, “I don’t know who they are … kinda.”
She’s more emphatic with the other names of folks who win and influence people at UNLV. Has she heard of outgoing president Carol Harter? “No,” Shelton says. How about Chancellor Jim Rogers? “No.”
Ditto for Alexander Toll, 20. She doesn’t know what the Board of Regents is, let alone how it shapes her education. Harter is a big “No.” Rogers, well, he’s a little different. Says Toll, “His name sounds familiar …”
That’s the exact same response Ahern gave when quizzed about Rogers. But, unlike his fellow students, he did know a bit about UNLV’s incoming president David Ashley, the man who took the job following a very public, very screwy undertaking that saw a Board of Regent subcommittee’s controversial first choice, Lt. Gen. William Lennox, United States Army, drop out. “He was, what, the second choice? And then they tried to backpedal and say, ‘No, he’s our first choice.'”
Welcome to the UNLV presidential selection process. If you were trying to prove the accuracy of Henry Kissinger’s famous quip that “University politics are vicious precisely because the stakes are so small,” then you’d be wise to examine what led to Harter’s move from president to executive director of the university’s new think tank, the Black Mountain Institute. Except in this instance the stakes aren’t small — they’re huge.
Not only is the direction of a university at stake, but also the direction of Las Vegas and possibly even the entire state. Because UNLV has big dreams that, if realized, could impact a large swath of Nevadans. Chief among them are its desire to become a “Research 1” institution, a prestigious ranking that would help UNLV’s professors and students to develop new technologies that may lead to new jobs. Such status would also help capture outside dollars the university could use to attract top-quality professors and students, not to mention maintain existing programs.
The push to land the “Research 1” designation, plus UNLV’s role in an ambitious plan to build a $217.7 million Health Sciences Center, made the stakes in choosing Harter’s successor high. Which, in turn, pushed tensions up to the point of bursting the thermometer before, during and after the selection process. A process that lead many to wonder: Who’s in charge here?
Out with the old, in with the committees
In late January, after heading UNLV for 11 years — an eternity for such a position in academia — Carol Harter resigned as president effective June 30. Her decision was immediately met with chin-scratching over the circumstances and finger-pointing over who was responsible. Most of those fingers were aimed directly at Chancellor Jim Rogers.
Board of Regent members Howard Rosenberg and Linda Howard were among those who either implied or openly speculated that Rogers was the man behind the curtain, forcing Harter out because her leadership style didn’t jibe with his management philosophy. Lending credence to the murmurs was the fact that Rogers was granted the authority to fire presidents in 2005 — a confusing move to many because presidents are hired by the Board of Regents. Later on, during the search process, Rogers’ power was to crop up again as a dizzying, if momentary, headache.
Indeed, the University of Nevada, Reno’s president stepped down a couple of weeks before Harter announced she was leaving, ramping up the already heated grumblings. “We lost two presidents of our two universities within two weeks of each other,” Rosenberg toldCityLife during a recent phone interview. “Something is wrong.”
In a Review-Journal letter to the editor published in February, six former UNLV Faculty Senate chairs challenged Rogers’ authority to fire presidents and criticized his no-holds-barred style, which they felt was born of his experience as owner of Sunbelt Communications Co., which owns television stations including KVBC Channel 3 in Las Vegas.
“Responsibility for the hiring and firing of presidents should rightly remain in the hands of the elected members of the Board of Regents, and with a process that includes input from the campus community including administrators, faculty, staff and students. Mr. Rogers’ reputation in the business community is also well-known, and we are horrified that his autocratic management style has apparently become a reality for our educational institutions.”
Harter wasn’t talking. She kept quiet for a month after her announcement before finally going public, only to steer clear of the blame game for fear of further attracting negative publicity to UNLV. However, she did allow in a March Review-Journal article that the decision “wasn’t entirely my choice, so let’s just put it that way.” No matter who did what to whom, the end result was the same: Harter was out.
Next came the committees. As chairman of the board, Regent Bret Whipple immediately launched a search for Harter’s replacement, a process that included hiring an outside search firm to scour for candidates and the establishment of two committees. One was composed of five regents, including an alternate. And the other was split evenly between UNLV faculty, staff and students and “community members,” plus one alumni association member — for a total of 31.
While, in theory, the two committees’ charges were the same — each was tasked with selecting what it felt was the most qualified candidate — the ultimate authority to hire a new president resided with the regents. It was a distinction that would later become a point of confusion at the least, angry contention at the worst.
One person a smidge confused from the outset was UNLV Dean of Libraries Patricia Iannuzzi. Although she has her suspicions, she’s not sure how she was chosen as a committee member. But she does know the call came from Rogers’ office.
“I’m new to the university, so I’m objective and unbiased, I would think,” says Iannuzzi. “On the other hand, I would wonder: There are 10 to 12 deans, and there are some good, powerful deans — you have big programs here. They’re much bigger programs and might have more to say about some of the research issues or the health and sciences issues. Why wasn’t one of them selected?”
Perhaps, critics say, precisely because she was new, didn’t have the same level of influence, and therefore was somebody who wouldn’t be outspoken during the selection process. In other words, someone who could be controlled. If that was the thinking, it was not to be: Iannuzzi has her opinions, and she wasn’t afraid to voice them during or after the committee meetings.
Rogers says he doesn’t know how the committee was selected, though he did suggest that Steve Wynn’s wife Elaine and BankWest of Nevada Chairman Art Marshall be placed on the institutional committee. Both ended up being selected.
“The Board of Regents would have done that,” Rogers says of who chose the committee members. “My guess is there were a whole lot of people who made suggestions. I never went to any of their meetings, so I don’t know who the hell was on there.”
Regent Steve Sisolak, chair of the ad hoc president search committee, says there was nothing nefarious about the choosing of committee members. The whole purpose was to “try and get a wide range of individuals and different perspectives and community backgrounds.”
All of the “community members” CityLife contacted for this story either failed to return phone calls, refused to comment or were unavailable.
Nevertheless, as Terrence Clauretie, a finance professor and member of the institutional advisory committee, notes, “There are some powerful people on that committee.” Fifteen of them. In addition to Wynn and Marshall, there was Joyce Mack and Tom Thomas of Thomas & Mack Co., as well as federal public defender Fran Forsman and the Vista Group’s Mike Saltman (whose controversial plan to reinvent the university district up and down Maryland Parkway has become a prickly topic of conversation). In short, these and other people snagged from the community were not your average Joes and Janes.
For their part, Clauretie and sociology professor Kate Hausbeck say they were nominated to the committee. Hausbeck, who says her decision to join the committee took “a little arm-twisting,” ultimately accepted in order to “get a bigger picture of how the regents operate.” But, she adds, “I, like everyone else, was
In the immediate aftermath of the process, however, its speed became a tertiary concern. The primary concern was the fact that a three-star Army general was selected by the regents to be the next president of UNLV. The other was that he was not the advisory committee’s first choice.
All in a few days’ work
As one might expect, there were plenty of details to iron out during the initial committee meeting before the field of candidates was selected — something Iannuzzi immediately recognized.
Though she’s what one would expect of a librarian both in appearance and manner — she’s short, dresses plainly, and is incredibly courteous — Iannuzzi is far from a meek biddy stamping books at the check-out line and telling students to shhh. When she speaks, she trains her brown, almost onyx eyes right on yours, and often uses gestures that, while controlled, serve to emphasize her perspective with a hand-waving exclamation point.
And her main point is almost always UNLV, its mission and the unique standing it occupies in the community — especially as it relates to achieving “Research 1” status. She brought all this to bear during the first committee meeting. Upon arriving at that meeting, she realized that there were two major issues that had to be settled.
First, she wanted to know whether the leadership profiles that they’d been told to draw up were “limited to asking if we were supposed to be coming up with .. qualities and characteristics for a president, or what we thought were priorities for the institution when they got here,” she says, adding that one community member was particularly concerned with K through 12 education.
“And people started saying, ‘Well, he should be a fund-raiser,” she continues. “And I said, ‘Wait a minute. We’re mixing up qualities and characteristics for a leader and what the person should actually be focusing on.'” The regents eventually told them to do both.
The next issue again sprang from some of the community and business leaders on the committee. They wanted to know about Rogers. When were they going to hear from him? What was his role? What was his leadership profile?
“There was some initial reaction that the chancellor doesn’t have any role, and that he can come to the open meeting and participate and contribute like others,” says Iannuzzi. “Some of the business people … were saying that this doesn’t make any sense. If the chancellor has the ability to fire the person, then we should be sure that we should be … recommending someone who he thinks meets those qualifications.”
Iannuzzi had a suggestion: The committee should put a talk with Rogers on the agenda and ask him what he was looking for in a leader. The suggestion was accepted.
So what was Rogers looking for in a president? “I was looking for a visionary. I was looking for someone who was bold,” he says. Then, echoing criticism he’d made of Harter in theReview-Journal when news broke that Harter was stepping down, adds that a good president would “not need to be involved in every decision made.” Rogers doesn’t like micro-managers.
Beyond management style, however, Rogers’ statement illustrates an obvious point: Everybody on the advisory and regents committee had his own ideas of what UNLV’s new president should offer.
Sociology professor Hausbeck (she starts as associate dean for academic affairs of the Graduate College in July) wanted someone who was a strong person in his field, adding, “I feel like we shouldn’t even have to ask for that.” Finance professor Clauretie says, “My major concern was getting a president that would elevate the scholarship at the university … so the end result would be that the students that got a degree — the degree would mean something.”
Dorothy S. Gallagher, who served on the regent’s search committee, sums it up best: “The qualities are always the same. You’re looking for someone that’s a leader.”
Those someones were narrowed from 10 candidates — submitted by the search firm — to three during the course of a later meeting. They were Marvin Krislov, vice president and general counsel at the University of Michigan; David Ashley, executive vice chancellor and provost at the University of California, Merced; and Lt. Gen. William Lennox, superintendent of the United States Military Academy, more commonly known as West Point.
Meet the candidates
During the candidates’ interview session with the committee, Clauretie asked one question of all three: “What specifically would you do to increase the academic reputation of the university? Mr. Lennox said, ‘Well, I would go out and make sure that we hire the very best faculty.’ Dr. Ashley said, ‘I would go out and make sure that we hire the very best faculty.’ The third candidate [Krislov] didn’t say that. He said, ‘I would tell people stories about how good our graduates are.’
“So, you know, from my perspective you hire the very best faculty,” continues Clauretie. “How many parents say, ‘I want my son to go to the University of California — they’ve got really good administrators there?'” Needless to say, Clauretie’s choice for the next president of UNLV was between Ashley and Lennox.
But Ashley, not Lennox, was his first choice. And many of his fellow committee members felt the same way.
“Our straw vote was explicitly clear that it was between Ashley and Krislov,” says Hausbeck.
Adds Iannuzzi, “There was an expectation that we would come back [after the straw vote], and that we would forward our recommendations. We were ready, some of us, to make a motion to recommend two names. But the advisory committee never made a recommendation to the regents — it was pre-empted.”
In other words, the regents committee had already made up its mind. The candidate it chose to submit to the entire Board of Regents to lead UNLV during this critical period wasn’t Krislov, the lawyer, or Ashley the provost — it was Lennox, the general. To many on the advisory committee, the move was a slap in the face. The whole process was, to put it mildly, a waste of time.
Outgoing president Harter didn’t have an opportunity to spend any time in the process, adding, “I would’ve thought that it could’ve been useful for the candidates to have an opportunity to speak with me.”
“I think where we broke down in the process was the expectation that the advisory committee thought that we were going to make a recommendation” that would have some weight, says Iannuzzi.
Regent Sisolak, the chair of the ad hoc committee, says he didn’t want to have the three candidates ranked, because “that’s just the way I chose to do it. I didn’t think it was fair to those people to have an advisory committee rank them one, two, three.” He emphasizes the advisory portion of the institutional committee’s title. “That’s where I didn’t know there was a mix-up. They had a huge impact.
“There’s a major difference here,” he continues. “These advisory members have one thing on their mind: What’s best for UNLV? They have a vested interest in a specific area. The regents — we view this from a system-wide issue.”
Harter understands how the faculty may have felt left out. And she also understands why: shared-governance isn’t just a concept in higher education — it’s a thoroughly ingrainedmodus operandi. “I do not think the outside world understands shared-governance. Having input isn’t the same thing as having your way. We’re not making widgets here; we’re teaching individuals to think for themselves.”
Says Hausbeck, “There are two sides, right? And it’s hard not to see both. We spent a lot of time on that advisory board, and it was extremely frustrating for a lot of people.” But the regents, she adds, “had additional information that the rest of us did not that they felt made Lennox a different candidate.”
In the end, Lennox was a different candidate. One that ultimately didn’t want the job.
The Lennox factor
Disregard the stereotypical image of university professors lugging copies of The Communist Manifesto across campus, railing against the prospect of being lead by an Army general for a moment. Certainly, there were some faculty entertaining the notion of having to salute their new president if they saw him in the hallway. But that’s a red herring.
The real problem with Lennox for many was the fact that he wasn’t much of a scholar, and he didn’t have experience with an institution that went beyond undergraduate education. (West Point is strictly for undergrads.) The question became: How can this guy lead UNLV into “Research 1” terrain without having published much, and without experience leading a university with doctoral programs?
One possible answer: The regents saw him as a can-do guy who could nail funding through his extensive Washington connections. Another possible answer: Regents with aspirations for higher political office may be able to use those connections to their own advantage some day. Regent Jill Derby, for example, is running for U.S. Congress. But she wasn’t on the search committee.
Regent Linda Howard was on the search committee and is currently running for Clark County public administrator. And in 2004, she lost a bid for the state Senate. She did not return a phone call seeking comment.
Regardless, Rogers was happy with the choice of Lennox — another possible reason for the regents’ selection of him. After all, Rogers is donating to Derby’s campaign, and may be inclined to toss some greenbacks to others some day. Indeed, Howard reportedly asked during a recent meeting that Rogers donate money to her campaign.
As Sisolak acknowledges, the pressure for regents to run for other offices is ever-present. “I’ve been asked to run every election cycle.” But he’s staying put. “I feel really strongly in higher education.”
Rogers strenuously denies any wrongdoing. He says Derby has voted “against everything I always asked for.” He adds of donating money to a regent’s bid for public office: “My position is I have a right to do it, and I’m gonna do it. I have never under any circumstances called any regent … and asked them to vote. They’re gonna say I’m involved, well, of course. But there’s a difference in being involved and setting things in motion.”
None of it mattered anyway. In mid-May, Lennox, despite unanimous support from the regents subcommittee, backed out before he could even be appointed. While Lennox did not return a phone call from CityLife, he told the Review-Journal: “I’m withdrawing my name from consideration of the presidency of UNLV, and I’m doing this for personal reasons. The community and all at the university have been superb. I view UNLV as a great university on the rise, and wish them the best of luck.” He declined to answer any further questions.
It’s easy to speculate why Lennox decided not to take up the reins at UNLV: lack of faculty support, concerns about his military background, problems with his lack of scholarship. Who knows? The writing was on the wall: The guy who was once the combined/joint operations officer for the combined force command in Korea was, for perhaps the first time in his career, charging onto the battlefield without a full army.
“There’s one thing that gets highlighted — especially without saying why,” says Rosenberg of Lennox’s decision, and the fact that Rogers only gave him a chronology of what occurred, not specific reasons. “When you don’t know why, you’re open to conjecture. I have called him [Lennox] three times. He has not returned my calls. I would like to know why.”
Says Rogers of Lennox’s bowing out: “I had a great relationship with him. I was disappointed when he called and told me he wouldn’t take the job. But it wasn’t such a jolt that, oh my God, what are we gonna do now?”
And what “we,” the regents, did next was select the advisory committee’s top choice: David Ashley.
Greetings, Mr. President
Given the public manner of UNLV’s search for a new president, it’s hard to understand why Ashley chose the job in the first place. As Iannuzzi says, in higher education, “The organization trying to do the hiring is at a disadvantage, because there’s not an abundance of people out there that are really good and qualified.” Like Ashley, whose resume highlights include a post as chair of civil and environmental engineering at the University of California, Berkeley; a gig as dean of engineering at Ohio State; and more than 50 publications in scholarly journals.
“Because UNLV is recognized as such a moving and advancing institution,” says Harter, “it’s got some characteristics that are attractive to some people.” Indeed, she’s staying put at the Black Mountain Institute — a three-pronged institution that includes a publishing imprint, a venue for attracting writers to discuss contemporary issues and is part of a network that grants foreign authors political asylum — because of UNLV’s upward trajectory.
Most everybody — including Rogers, who phoned Ashley to say that he was comfortable with the regents’ decision — likes him. And most everybody further acknowledges that, when he arrives at UNLV July 1, he’s got his work cut out for him.
Chief among his duties is hiring a new provost. One of 11 cabinet positions, the provost is essentially the face of the administration for the faculty. Which, of course, is notoriously hard to please. Ray Alden, who’s resigned as provost because “just in general, when presidents change, they often want to bring their own provost,” says that a good candidate will understand strategic planning. And how to deal with those pesky professors.
“Obviously, it has to be someone who’s had experience in a sort of aligned position with respect to faculty,” he says. “Generally, provosts come up through the ranks. It’s the kind of position that has so many aspects to it. It requires such a diversity of different perspectives.”
But the way the UNLV presidential search was conducted — the confusion, acrimony and public and private airing of grievances — and the nature of Nevada’s open meeting laws has propelled fears that quality people may shy away from that job and others.
The day after Lennox was chosen, and before he dropped out, Iannuzzi had breakfast with Whipple, and discussed this very concern. “He wanted to be sure that there was an improvement in the process, and we could learn from it. It was more important that we have a person that everyone could get behind, and wouldn’t play out in the media that there was this big division or lack of support. Because it would make it very, very difficult for this institution to attract quality people.
“I think Ashley is going to be very, very busy with all the politics,” she continues. “The politics in the state of Nevada in higher education are very complex. I lived in Florida, and I’ve lived in California. I’ve lived in Massachusetts and I’ve lived in Connecticut, and I’ve never seen a system of higher education where the governance structure the way it is as complicated as it is here.”
That brings up the issue of whether Ashley is going to be his own man, able to make choices — like hiring a provost — without the influence of Rogers or the regents or anyone else. Hausbeck, for one, has confidence that he’s up to it. “There’s speculation running like crazy, but I don’t think it’s fair to speculate. Ashley, I think, will pick someone who has the support of the community.”
Reached by phone in California, Ashley exudes calm control. He talks about his soon-to-be-former university Merced, the fact that it’s new to the massive Golden State system and serves a large amount of minorities. He also talks about UNLV’s goal to hit “Research 1,” and the importance of maintaining a focus on general education, even as the university moves toward more specialized focuses.
And he talks about the selection process, clearly elucidating what he liked and didn’t like about it. “This was the most unique search process I’ve ever seen. It was open to the extreme, which had some positives. And it happened very quickly. It was hectic.”
On Rogers and his role, and how Rogers’ role relates to his, Ashley is equally as clear: He’s an independent operator, and Rogers not only knows it, but he also agreed to it. “That’s the commitment that the chancellor and I have. He hired me to run this campus.”
VIA:Las Vegas CityLife
Return To News Stories
See Other Lv CityLife Stories