Despite woes in search, NSHE needs more transparency, not less

Tuesday, May 2, 2017 | 2 a.m.

It seems safe to assume that the finalists in the search for a new chancellor for the Nevada System of Higher Education, being the highly accomplished scholars they are, are capable of doing homework.

So in turn, it seems logical that before they sent in their applications, they would have been well aware that NSHE is a state government organization that receives funding from Nevada taxpayers and therefore is subject to open meetings and open records laws. And since they’re such smart cookies, it’s logical to assume they boned up on the search and selection process, and thus would have been aware that their identities would be revealed if they were selected as finalists.

So here’s a real brain-teaser: Why did the four of them who recently withdrew over concerns about being identified as finalists even apply for the position in the first place?

And another question: Why didn’t the Board of Regents make it clear to those applicants that they’d be identified if they were chosen as finalists, and immediately reject any candidate who had a problem with that?

Whatever the answers, the candidates’ withdrawals have resulted in a great deal of grief among the regents. They’re considering postponing the search, with board Chairman Rick Trachok saying the remaining candidates weren’t worth considering.

So what happens next? That’s unclear, but a comment from Regent Trevor Hayes on the matter was deeply troubling.

“I think unfortunately this is a case where the open meeting law is hindering our ability to select the best candidate to be able to run the best system of higher education possible,” said Hayes, a member of the search committee, in a story published in the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

If Hayes or anyone else is suggesting making the selection process less transparent, that’s completely unacceptable.

So applicants don’t want to be identified? Fine, let them apply for any of the millions of jobs in the private sector, where they generally can remain anonymous.

As for those who want to lead NSHE, Nevadans expect them to act transparently and be face-forward.

Any movement by the regents to close off the selection process would be an affront to the hard-working Nevada residents who fund NSHE. They deserve to know what’s going on in the organization.

Didn’t the regents learn anything about the importance of transparency from the departure of the former chancellor, Dan Klaich? It was less than a year ago that Klaich left NSHE amid allegations that he’d misled lawmakers in 2011 and 2012 on funding matters.

If anything, the mess showed that Nevadans needed more information about NSHE, not less.

It seems entirely appropriate for the public to know the finalists for such an important position as chancellor.

Several states require finalists to be identified, so much so that the requirement is standard in public academia. In other words, the candidates know what they’re getting into when they apply; it’s no secret that they’ll be ID’d if they make the cut as finalists.

So if Nevada is having a difficult time finding top-level applicants, perhaps it’s because of the oddball structure of higher education in the state — in which NSHE oversees not just state universities but community colleges — and the fact that legislators have been talking about reforming the system to restrict the chancellor’s authority. Amid such uncertainty, qualified candidates might be choosing to take a pass until the dust settles.

Finally, if candidates aren’t willing to be identified, what does that say about them? If they’re already in public service, the answer is that they’re not willing to be completely transparent with the taxpayers who are currently paying their salaries.

That’s strike one, two and three. Nevada needs a higher-ed leader who understands that public service means operating entirely above board.