Jessup saga illustrates need for overhaul of state’s higher-ed system

Sunday, April 15, 2018 | 2 a.m.

UNLV has endured a shocking amount of institutional dysfunction courtesy of the behavior of some members of the Nevada Board of Regents and Chancellor Thom Reilly. To understand the magnitude of the problems they have created and the erratic approach they have taken to higher education, put yourself in the shoes of UNLV president Len Jessup as we walk through the timeline of events that led to his departure.

In August 2017, you begin reporting to a new supervisor, the third who’s been named to his position since you started work in early 2015. The supervisor has been selected after a botched search in which the finalists withdrew and the position was instead offered to an interim — who also declined it.

Amid the turmoil and dysfunction, you have yet to undergo an annual performance evaluation. But you can make a strong case that you’ve done a commendable job under intensely difficult circumstances. Not only has there been complete disarray above you, but you are the fifth person to hold your position since 2006.

With all of the comings and goings in leadership, you had inherited a mid-level organization without a clear and cohesive strategy for reaching its potential and becoming part of the elite.

You’ve established a vision, recruited a talented leadership team and begun working tirelessly to strengthen your organization’s community relations. By the time your third boss comes aboard, you have attracted a large group of supporters from across your community, and you can point to a number of metrics and accomplishments to indicate that your organization has made remarkable progress during your short time on the job.

Have you been perfect? No. But your missteps are correctable and manageable.

But in mid-November 2017, about 90 days after your new boss starts work, you receive a critical assessment in a memo. You respond, but 30 days later you get a second critical assessment.

You also became the only person in your position who is asked to provide a self-evaluation.

Then, in January, you receive your first-ever formal evaluation, and it is highly critical. You are stunned, not only because you feel things are on the right track but because the evaluation is based partly on a set of goals that your organization’s board of directors approved just three days before your evaluation.

Meanwhile, you have begun facing increasingly harsh criticism from some members of your organization’s board of directors. In what some observers refer to as cross-examinations, one board member trashes you on a contract you’d negotiated and for cost overruns on a special event. Later, your supporters will note with disgust that the board member voted for the contract and that the event had been extraordinarily beneficial for your community.

At this point, do you feel you are in a good working relationship? Do you feel appreciated? Do you feel like staying around?

No, no and no.

And Jessup was no different.

Reilly, along with Jessup’s detractors on the board, acted inexcusably in pressuring him out three years into his five-year contract. Targeting someone with Jessup’s accomplishments suggests some regents and Reilly don’t know what success looks like.

Jessup made missteps, but he didn’t deserve to be forced out over them. The worst two could have been handled privately, as neither involved the type of scandal that typically leads to the ouster of university presidents.

No question, Jessup made a questionable judgment call in signing an agreement that tied a multimillion-dollar donation to UNLV School of Medicine to him being retained until 2020. And if regents wanted to question UNLV’s response to the discovery that a dentist in its School of Dentistry had reused equipment that was intended for single uses, that’s fine.

But in neither case did Jessup deserve to be driven out of town. Fixing a large institution is a complicated process, and slip-ups can happen no matter what. What matters is addressing the shortcomings and fixing them. If the answer is “off with their heads,” then top-shelf candidates won’t apply, ever.

A board and chancellor looking out for UNLV’s best interests would never have taken that approach, as Jessup’s departure will stall the university’s progress toward becoming a top-level research institution and has already prompted major donors to withdraw contributions.

This is a mess that could take years to clean up. Unless the next president adopts Jessup’s vision, which is highly unlikely, the university will yet again have to pivot toward a new leader’s goals. And big institutions like UNLV don’t make quick turns.

Reilly says he’s confident that NSHE could find good candidates for the job, but his assurances are empty.

For a highly qualified and upwardly mobile candidate, the position has got to look like a career trap, or a short stop at best. Between the high turnover, NSHE’s record of mismanagement and the unfair handling of Jessup, it’s difficult to imagine why a prime prospect would be eager to jump into the role.

Now, though, what’s done is done. Jessup is on his way to a highly respected institution, Claremont Graduate University, that must be thanking its lucky stars that Nevada’s leadership was so ridiculously short-sighted and petty to shove him out. And Southern Nevada — yet again — is left to pick up the pieces and try to move on.

The situation screams for changes in the structure of higher-education administration in the state. Currently, the 13-member board is elected, unlike in other states where boards are appointed by the governor. Although the appointment structure comes with its own set of problems, 13 board members is too many and having them as elected positions is a proven failure.

The Jessup affair is the latest in a long line of examples of why Nevada’s universities and colleges need to be placed under new and more enlightened management.