Sun editorial:
Flaws in system exposed by case of regent candidate running unopposed
Published Friday, May 25, 2018 | 2 a.m.
Updated Friday, May 25, 2018 | 9:48 a.m.
View more of the Sun's opinion section
View more of the Sun's opinion section
Anywhere but Nevada, Donald McMichael Sr.’s chances of becoming a member of a state board of regents would be practically nonexistent.
In states where governors appoint board members, the political unknown’s lack of a college degree would immediately make him a nonconsideration. And in a contested election, his lack of experience in higher education and public or private leadership would leave him with impossibly long odds of winning.
But in the Silver State, this unknown first-time candidate — who acknowledges he wasn’t expecting to win the seat when he filed and isn’t sure how much of a challenge he’s bitten off — is facing a clear pathway to becoming a regent. He’s running unopposed in District 4, which serves a large part of the eastern valley and North Las Vegas.
This can’t be allowed to happen. Although it was commendable for McMichael to seek a leadership position, it’s critical for voters to find a more qualified candidate and start taking steps to get that person on the board, either by urging McMichael to pull out or preparing for a recall effort if he wins the seat.
With state lawmakers and the current Board of Regents having failed to take steps that would help raise the caliber of the regents, voters are now left to take action.
To that end, the Sun challenges the state party organizations to find suitable candidates, and we also invite readers to recommend potential candidates to us.
The stakes are too high for Nevada’s higher education system to allow a candidate with as many shortcomings as McMichael to take the seat.
Despite receiving an above-average amount of state funding, the system is underperforming and is being outpaced by other states. Meanwhile, UNLV President Len Jessup’s forced departure from the university by a group of regents and Nevada System of Higher Education Chancellor Thom Reilly has disrupted a period of remarkable progress, prompted major donors to withdraw or reconsider gifts, and has left numerous Southern Nevadans at war with UNLV’s overseers.
The situation in District 4 cries out for the need for changes in the system.
One, it’s time to adopt the approach taken by other states, where boards consist of regents either appointed by the governor or a mix of appointees and elected regents. At the same time, Nevada should establish a legislative vetting process to help ensure that appointed candidates are qualified and suited to serve.
In states with appointed boards, regents tend to be prominent leaders in business, politics and academia. That’s because governors face the loss of political capital if they appoint substandard candidates.
For proof, look no further than California, whose regents include the CEO of the Geffen Co., the former CEO of Paramount Pictures’ Motion Picture Group, a former congressman and the former speaker of the state Assembly. With all due respect to Nevada’s regents, the state board doesn’t have members of that caliber.
A second change needed in Nevada is to reduce the size of the 13-member board. As is, there are so many districts that winning one often requires a small number of votes, especially in mid-term years when turnout is relatively low. One seat recently took fewer than 11,000 votes to win.
The situation doesn’t foster spirited competition, and it dilutes the pool of highly qualified candidates. The result is that regent elections are perennially low-energy affairs, largely ignored by voters. In 2016, for instance, Patrick Carter defeated incumbent Michael Wixom in both the primary and the general election despite not raising or spending any campaign funding, while Wixom spent at least $40,000. The victory prompted speculation that Carter won simply because the candidates were listed alphabetically on the ballot and voters picked the first name they saw.
Restructuring the board would help prevent another situation like the one in District 4, but another part of the solution goes beyond the higher education system and Nevada’s borders.
An increasingly disrespectful and dismissive attitude toward government — which has metastasized in President Donald Trump’s war on expertise in government and his mode of thinking that people of average ability can fill any position, no matter how complicated — has led us to a point in our culture where we so desperately misunderstand the stakes and responsibilities of public office that we’ve adopted a childish “anyone with common sense can do it” mentality.
This denigration of the passion, engagement and intelligence necessary for public servants who will deliver meaningful results to voters is how we end up with candidates like Trump, who run for jobs they don’t even understand and have little interest in devoting time to.
For the record, being a Nevada regent is a heavy lift. Doing it right involves poring through documents hundreds of pages long on a regular basis; gaining an understanding of complexities unique to higher education, like accreditation and tenure processes; and developing a working knowledge of state and federal law applying to higher education, to name just a few of the challenges.
McMichael’s desire to fill his retirement years with public service is admirable, and we applaud him for it. However, as his responses to questions posted in a recent interview suggest, accepting a seat on the board of regents is a job he doesn’t appear to understand and would likely struggle to perform is not the best use of his time.
Plenty of volunteer opportunities exist for people like McMichael, who want to do something good for their community in their retirement. Toying with the board of regents isn’t appropriate.
Editor's note: This editorial has been revised to reflect the fact that Nevada law does not allow for write-in candidates.