Regents end investigation into chancellor’s complaint, restore board officers

During a special meeting, Regents Carol Del Carlo, Amy Carvalho and Donald Sylvantee McMichael Sr. voted “no.” John Moran said during deliberations he wouldn’t support the motion, but was absent for the vote.

Before the vote, Carvalho said: “This agenda item is fraught with issues that I cannot support.”

As a result of the vote, Board Chair Cathy McAdoo and Vice Chair Patrick Carter — who previously stepped down temporarily from their leadership roles while an independent third-party investigation was underway — were reinstated to their positions through June 30. Del Carlo was previously serving as the temporary chair and Carvalho as vice chair during the investigation.

Rose, who has been on the job since September 2020, submitted a hostile work environment complaint in early October 2021.

The Review-Journal obtained a copy of a Feb. 4 memo from a source from law firm Fennemore Craig that outlined the results of the investigation, saying there was “insufficient evidence” to support Rose’s claims of a sex-based hostile work environment.

But investigators determined an ethical code of conduct in the Board of Regents handbook was likely violated in several instances.

NSHE hasn’t publicly released documents showing the outcome of the investigation and a Review-Journal public records request last week was denied.

Del Carlo said during the Thursday meeting that the board is required to call a special meeting upon written request from at least five regents.

Since it was a confidential personnel investigation, there won’t be discussion at the meeting about the chancellor or regents’ conduct, she said.

NSHE Deputy General Counsel Yvonne Nevarez-Goodson said her recommendation was that the seven regents who were named and investigated in Rose’s complaint or its two addendums should disclose that and abstain from voting.

When a person is named in a complaint, it does affect their personal and pecuniary interests, she said.

None of the seven regents named abstained from voting.

When Del Carlo asked if there were any disclosures or abstentions, Regent Jason Geddes said he was named in an addendum but didn’t think there was a reason under Nevada law that would require him to abstain.

If the seven regents named were to abstain, a large number of Nevada citizens won’t be represented, Geddes said.

Regent John Moran, a lawyer, said he agreed with Nevarez-Goodson’s legal analysis and recommendation, noting it’s unfortunate some regents weren’t following her advice.

Carvalho said the agenda item was asking for the acknowledgement of the conclusion of the investigation and ties the return of previous leadership with it. It implies the board will return to the environment that initiated the original complaint, she added.

Carvalho said that during the three years she has been on the board, regents have been under scrutiny from constituents.

Issues with bad behavior have been swept under rug and not addressed, she said, noting she could no longer stand by and allow it to occur.

Carvalho also said she couldn’t ignore the voices of the public, philanthropic and business leaders in Southern Nevada, and Gov. Steve Sisolak’s urging in a Wednesday letter to work collegially with Rose.

Students, employees and constituents deserve a better Board of Regents, she said.

Geddes said he couldn’t disagree with Carvalho more. He made a motion to approve the conclusion of the investigation.

Nothing in the action says anything positive or negative about the chancellor, he said, adding NSHE received a complaint, hired an outside firm to perform the investigation and the investigation is now complete.

There were issues raised about possible ethical violations, but nothing was confirmed, he said.

If every governing agency in the state had to stop its business due to possible ethics violations, agencies such as school districts and local municipalities would shut down, Geddes said.

If the Nevada Commission on Ethics rules on an ethics complaint, the Board of Regents will take action, Geddes said, but said the board shouldn’t get paralyzed by complaints and allegations.

Del Carlo opposed the motion, saying she’s not comfortable with concluding the investigation before ethics issues are addressed.

Also, a vote to approve would be taking the board back to the status quo, which wasn’t working before and isn’t addressing the underlying issues, she said.

Del Carlo also pointed out the board voted unanimously in 2020 to hire Rose as chancellor. And she also said she was disappointed some of her colleagues weren’t taking advice from legal counsel.

Public comments

The board heard about 30 minutes of public comments from meeting sites in Las Vegas and Reno.

Public comments in Las Vegas were largely in support of Rose and called for further investigation into possible ethics issues raised in the investigation report.

Some of the speakers were representing several labor and business organizations who issued a letter Tuesday to the Nevada Commission on Ethics calling for an ethics investigation into McAdoo and Carter.

Jennifer Hostetler, one of Rose’s attorneys, said she’s disappointed by the investigation report into the chancellor’s complaint.

Employee complaints should be thoroughly vetted by the investigator, she said, but noted the investigator focused on gender discrimination and didn’t fully vet other claims.

It also revealed ethics violations by certain board members that haven’t been thoroughly investigated, Hostetler said.

Should Rose be retaliated against, expect there will be significant legal consequences, she told the board. She also said Rose simply wants to be able to do her job.

Beverly Rogers of The Rogers Foundation, a large charitable foundation that funds many education-related projects, said she doesn’t understand why the board would be putting two individuals back in charge who committed ethics violations.

Should donors and people who support Rose consider this a slap in our face? she asked. “It’s just appalling.”

The higher education system finally has a chancellor who has the vision, leadership skills and experience to take Nevada where it has never been, Rogers said, noting the very least Rose deserves is a strong backing from her board.

Paul Moradkhan, senior vice president of government affairs for the Vegas Chamber, urged the board not to change its leadership at this time, noting work should be completed looking into ethics issues.

It would be negligent to move forward with the agenda item, he said, also noting there are growing concerns in the community about the integrity of the board and higher education system.

Former NSHE regent Lisa Levine said she knows firsthand how political and petty relationships can be within the higher education system.

The investigation into Rose’s complaint identified ethics issues, Levine said, noting she doesn’t support the agenda item to conclude the investigation.

Maureen Schafer, executive director of the Council for the Better Nevada, said allegations against McAdoo and Carter should be examined by the Nevada Commission on Ethics before any action is taken to change board leadership.

At the very least, she said, McAdoo and Carter should recuse themselves from voting.

The NSHE system of governance is outdated and broken, Schafer said. “Where is the focus on students? The people may change, but the behavior continues.”

UNLV Student Body President Caren Yap said she has never been more disheartened by the Board of Regents and asked those named in the complaint to abstain from voting.

She thanked Rose for her work, attending student events, truly listening and doing what she can to hold regents accountable.

The vast majority of public commenters in Reno said they wanted to see NSHE reinstate a face mask mandate.

On the same day Sisolak announced last week he’d lift the state’s mask mandate, NSHE — which has eight public schools and about 100,000 students — also said it will no longer require employees, students or the public to wear a mask.

In a memo, Rose said it’s a systemwide decision and individual schools can’t impose stricter rules.

Contact Julie Wootton-Greener at jgreener@reviewjournal.com or 702-387-2921. Follow @julieswootton on Twitter.