Why We Voted to Demote President Remington

by Regents Tom Kirkpatrick,
Jack Lund Schofield and Bret Whipple

On November 20, 2003 the Board of Regents voted to demote Community College of Southern Nevada President Ron Remington. We came to this decision following a 17-hour, two-day marathon session.

Mr. Remington's demotion was officially based upon his insubordination toward the Board of Regents, as well as his violation of policies and procedures.

The 1,026-page report, reviewed and discussed by the Board prior to its voting has been made public. As a result, we can now give you the reasons for our individual vote.

In this statement we do not intend to represent the entire Board of Regents. Rather, we have identified four specific reasons out of numerous allegations why we felt compelled to demote President Remington.

Who are the Regents and what do we do?

The Board of Regents consists of thirteen elected individuals, who speak with one collective voice. The members of the Board of Regents come from all walks of life. We are police officers, nurses, teachers, lawyers, ranchers and retirees.

As with most aspects of our democracy, the majority vote is the voice of the Board. As a Board, we provide leadership to more then 98,000 students in eight different institutions of higher education and provide oversight for a budget of five hundred million dollars per year.

Nevada's students represent the future of Nevada. And as a Board, we recognize the tremendous responsibility the citizens of Nevada have given to us. We try to stay out of the day-to-day details of running our institutions and educating our students, but in turn we demand an extraordinarily high level of personal responsibility, integrity and trust from each one of our presidents. We must be able to maintain a high level of trust and confidence in each of our presidents in order to fulfill our elected responsibility to the public. That trust is vital. Each of our presidents is held 100% accountable for the actions of their institution.

The System's investigation and the 1,026-page report

On November 17, 2003 the Board of Regents began their review of a 1,026-page investigative report. The Chancellor ordered an independent investigation following allegations of improper hiring at the Community College of Southern Nevada. This independent investigation was supervised by the Board's legal staff and conducted by Jeff Cohen, a 30-year veteran of the criminal investigative division of the United States Treasury. The report was without summary and each Regent was left to evaluate the evidence independently

At the conclusion of the second day, each and every Regent discussed their interpretation of the evidence. In open session, a motion to forward the 1,026-page report to the FBI passed unanimously. A motion to remove Mr. Remington from the president's office passed 7 to 6. And, a motion to remove John Cummings from any administrative position passed 9 to 4. Each Regent voted their individual conscience.

(1) College employees circumvented
Board authority (AB 511)

Assembly Bill 511 was a proposed legislative bill to create a four-year program at our two-year college. AB 511 and the $800,000 it required, eventually failed. The Board of Regents never requested the $800,000, nor did we give our approval to change the structure of the college.

The investigation uncovered startling evidence concerning AB 511, and the college's chain of command. Prior to this year's legislative session, John Cummings, as senior advisor to President Remington, was essentially second in command at the college. Chris Giunchigliani, the director of college relations, reported to Mr. Cummings. Wendell Williams was a long-term friend of John Cummings and Briget Jones was a friend of Wendell Williams.

The investigation revealed that these individuals unilaterally chose to change the structure of the college. Instead of going "up the chain of command," through the president's office to the Board of Regents, these individuals circumvented the entire system by creating AB 511. During the investigation it was discovered that the initial language for the four-year bill was prepared by Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani and faxed from her office at the college to Wendell Williams and Briget Jones at the legislature. John Cummings, the individual who supervised Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, was the paid lobbyist who represented the college at the legislature.

We believe these actions violated the System's chain of command, threatened the integrity of the college, and potentially jeopardized the funding for our remaining seven institutions.

As Regents we are accountable to the citizens of Nevada. Presidents are accountable to the Board of Regents. In turn, Mr. Remington's employees should be accountable to his office. As Regents, our concern was if President Remington was not in control of his employees, "who was?"

When Assembly Bill 511 was made public, the Chancellor on behalf of the Board of Regents immediately met with President Remington, John Cummings and other representatives from the college. Letters of support, allegedly from the community, for a four-year school were provided to the Chancellor. The investigation revealed that these letters of support from the community at large, were actually prepared by individuals in the marketing department at the college. This act of deception also undermined our support of the President.

(2) A college employee requested
unauthorized funding. (SB 507)

Every two years the Board of Regents prepares a Capital Projects list that is forwarded to the governor for inclusion in his budget request from the legislature. We create this list after months of discussion and agreement from the campus presidents.

During the 2003 legislative session, this list eventually became Senate Bill 507. When SB 507 was made public, mysteriously tacked onto that bill was a $500,000 request for security improvements at CCSN. During the investigation we learned that John Cummings, in his position as lobbyist for the college, had advocated for the $500,000. This was contrary to the System's procedures.

(3) Friends of the college received
preferential treatment

On January 16, 2003 Briget Jones, a close friend of Assemblyman Wendell Williams, was hired by John Cummings as a clerical trainee at an annual salary of $21,694.32. Within three months, the college had spent several thousand dollars for Briget Jones' expenses in Carson City during her trips to the legislature. President Remington signed most all of Briget's expense vouchers.

The investigation showed that Briget Jones was hired in an underfill position that bypassed normal hiring practices. No other person interviewed for Briget's position.

There were other personnel practices that we reviewed that called into question Mr. Cummings' influence on the hiring of other employees at the college.

People have questioned how could we believe Briget Jones' allegations? The answer is that we did not use her testimony to make our decisions. In fact, we used direct evidence such as copies of faxes, e-mails and bill requests.

We were deeply disturbed however, with the content of Ms. Jones' testimony. Briget Jones stated that President Remington was aware of AB 511 from the beginning and had ordered that his fingerprints never be found on the bill. She also testified that John Cummings stated that SB 507 was to be used as his "slush fund" from which Ms. Jones' impending promotions would be paid.

(4) A friend of the President received preferential treatment

On August 24, 2000 John Cummings was hired as an instructor at an annual salary of $37,641. In July 2003, Mr. Cummings received his fifth pay raise in just three years.

Four of those raises were approved by Dr. Remington while he was president at CCSN. The last raise, which takes effect January 1, 2004, pushes Mr. Cummings' base salary to $115,313. During the 2-1/2 years Dr. Remington was president, he increased John Cummings' salary by more than $58,000.

John Cummings was also awarded tenure at the college during his second year. Tenure is awarded to community college and university faculty for academic achievement and the normal time requirement before a person can achieve tenure is four to five years. President Remington justified awarding this early tenure due to the hazards of Mr. Cummings' lobbying activities.

Prior to working at the college, John Cummings worked for a local advertising company. A year after John Cummings was hired, the college suddenly and without explanation terminated its contract with its original advertising firm. Mr. Cummings' prior employer was immediately retained for $700,000 per year. This contract to Mr. Cummings' prior employer was made without public notice or an open request for proposal. No other advertising company had the opportunity to bid on this contract. President Remington recommended approval of this contract.

Why we voted to demote President Ron Remington

The investigation took approximately two months. The witnesses were tape-­recorded and these tapes were transcribed by a court reporter. Mr. Cohen specifically questioned President Remington and all of the witnesses about the pertinent issues. The Board of Regents reviewed the investigation transcripts and worked within the framework of Nevada law.

When Mr. Remington took the position as president of the college, in his contract he agreed that he could be removed at any time, for any reason. President Remington was not fired and he was not terminated. He was transferred back to the psychology department where he will continue to earn $166,000 per year through the term of his contract (June 2005).

On December 10, 2003 District Court V reviewed the record to determine if the Board of Regents had followed the law. On each issue the court held against President Remington and for the Board of Regents.

So why did we vote to demote President Remington? The information that we had seen and heard violated the high level of confidence that we demand in a college president. Our trust in President Remington had been undermined and could never be fully restored. We, as members of the Board of Regents, made the decisions we did because we felt it was best for the college in the long run.

Ultimately, we faced a difficult situation. We followed the law and felt compelled to make a difficult decision. Our goal as individual members of the, Board of Regents is to provide the absolute best education to our students. In doing so, we believe we must hold our institutional leaders accountable, while at the same time balance and protect the taxpayers' dollar.

Conclusion

Nevada is one of the last states that continue to elect the Board of Regents. A decade ago, before Nevada enjoyed its explosive growth, many citizens knew their representative on the Board of Regents. Today this is not always possible. We are strangers to many of you and must earn your trust. Since we were constrained by state law on what we could say, the information many of you received regarding the demotion of President Remington was incomplete.

Our job as Regents is to work with our Chancellor and our campus leaders to ensure a bright future for the State of Nevada. This elected, non-paid position is a matter of public trust and a privilege that we take very seriously. If there is one message that we hope to bring, it is that we do not take your trust for granted.

If you have a question concerning Nevada higher education, please call us. Our contact information is available at www.nevada.edu or by calling (702) 889-8426.

Sincerely,

Regent Tom Kirkpatrick
Regent Jack Lund Schofield
Regent Bret Whipple

.