Let voters select Board of Regents

Just six months ago, Nevada voters were asked whether they'd like to change the way the governing body of the state's university system is chosen.

Nevada is currently the only state that elects a statewide board for that function. The proposal would have left some regents to be chosen by the voters, while the rest would have been appointed.

Voters said, "No. Leave it the way it is."

So our delegates in Carson City, whose job it is to make sure Nevada's statutes reflect the will of the people ... promptly ginned up Senate Joint Resolution 4, which would take away the people's power to elect their Board of Regents, filling every one of the seats via political appointment.

Under SJR4, the governor would appoint the regents, with the Legislature authorized to determine qualifications and the size of the board. Because this would require a constitutional amendment, the measure would have to be approved in two successive legislative sessions and then sent to the voters.

In a mostly party-line vote, the Republican-controlled state Senate OK'd the plan last month, 12-9.

It would be nice to pretend this level of hubris is unusual in Carson City. But in fact, lawmakers haven't even given up their recurring dream of an appointed judiciary -- the current SJR2 would take that task away from the unwashed masses, as well.

What next? Have the Legislature itself appointed by the governor? It would certainly cut down on all this expensive "campaigning."

The underlying complaint here is that voters choose candidates for these low-profile offices by the equivalent of throwing darts, with the result that the Board of Regents has hosted some real characters.

Regents in the past have nursed petty grudges, pored through student records without proper reason or authorization (Linda Howard), juiced their way into college jobs on their way out the door (Doug Seastrand) and shown ignorance or indifference to such constitutional issues as the freedoms of speech and petition on campus.

And don't even get started on the open meeting law.

Would an appointed body be more sophisticated and show more decorum? Probably.

But representative government is rarely nuanced and elegant. Squabbles can be more instructive than catatonic unanimity, and the current system does seem to manage to expel the worst offenders ... eventually.

Four current regents traveled to Carson City last week to object to an appointive board.

"To take away the vote of the people is just unconscionable," Regents Vice Chair Jack Schofield told an Assembly committee. Stripping the people of the right to choose their regents would be "elitist, patronizing and downright undemocratic," added Regent (and college professor) Howard Rosenberg.

The other part of ballot Question 9, proposed last year by then-Assemblywoman (now Clark County Commissioner) Chris Giunchigliani, would have reduced the size of the Board of Regents from 13 members to 9.

In most cases, because government bodies can be expected to do more harm than good, unwieldiness and gridlock are a net benefit to the public. But the current Board of Regents seems to be easily dominated by their supposed employee, tax-and-spend Chancellor Jim Rogers. (Note Mr. Rogers' current support of SJR4, which is opposed by most of his bosses -- not the kind of move a prudent "at-will" employee would usually risk.)

In fact, the Board of Regents had nine members until 1991, when it was expanded to 11, and then, in 2001, to 13.

On the theory that a more svelte body might be expected to offer the hired hands clearer and firmer guidance, any attempt to reform the regents might be better focused on removing a few of those extra chairs from the table.