Among questions of marijuana, property rights, and smoking bans on this November's election ballot, little has been said about Question 9:
What is it?
In short, a proposal that deals with the Board of Regents, the elected body authorized by the Nevada constitution to govern the funds and affairs of the state's higher education system.
At length, it seeks to shrink the board from its current 13 members to nine, and to change the way those members obtain their position. If the measure is approved, three regents would still be elected—one from each of Nevada's three congressional districts—and six would be appointed by the governor, who would be prohibited by law from selecting more than two-thirds of his picks from the same political party. Its third chief point is to shorten the regents' term length, from six years to four.
Why does it matter?
It's meant to make the board more effective at managing your tax dollars. Whether it would is under debate. The proposal sprouted out of frustration with the board, whose persistent infighting and violations of open-meeting laws four years ago made so many headlines in the papers that everyday citizens started taking notice. The proposal won legislative approval in 2003, by the narrowest of margins—11 to 10—and then again in 2005; and now, because it would amend the constitution, it must obtain voter approval to go into effect.
Who's all for it?
Democratic Assemblywoman and incoming District E County Commissioner Chris Giunchigliani, who wrote the proposal. Because: "Four years ago people started raising concerns about the infighting and lack of focus within the Board," she says. "It's too big, too unworkable, and there is too much micromanagement going on."
Giunchigliani says she researched other states and found that Nevada is in the minority of higher education boards around the nation with its elected regents, and even more rare in that it is possesses a board of double-digit numbers. It's proven that smaller groups can manage large amounts of people, she says, pointing to Clark County's own school district board, complete with seven members. "And none have six-year terms," she says. "Only U.S. senators have six-year terms. Four is much better: Quicker turnover means more accountability."
"Nine is more manageable," Giunchigliani states. "We already have presidents at all the schools; we don't need a large board getting in the way."
Low voter turnouts each election show that most of the public isn't interested in the regents, she continues. "It's sad, but it's reality." She asserts that with appointments the legislature can set standards for regents in the law and then have the governor make sure qualified candidates are selected.
Who's lukewarm toward it?
Mark Alden, a standing and senior regent, because: "I didn't like it as it was written. No one's going to want to run if the term is cut to four years. I certainly wouldn't. It takes nearly that long to understand things—I have an entire library full of literature on Nevada law and history and I'm still learning. I don't think the public fully understands what we're supposed to do, either.
"But as a citizen I like it. Five- to 10-year appointments wouldn't be such a bad idea. You want people who are qualified, without an agenda." In the end, Alden says: "It's a thought; I'm just not sure how good of one it is. I think the question just needs some adjustments."
Who's against it?
Jill Derby, a longtime regent and now candidate for Nevada's second congressional seat, because: Not all regents were consulted, she says. But she wishes she would have been. "I'll tell you what: I work as a consultant and board mentor to other boards—I have a lot of experience with them—and hybrids, I think, are a bad idea. Appointments go to those who contribute, and their agenda is very reflective of the governor's."
Shrinking to nine has no advantages, she says. "We are responsible for eight institutions—the public universities, state colleges, community colleges—and that means a lot of subcommittees, a lot of meetings, a lot of preparation. It would be too much for nine people. The board would lose full discussion and debate on issues; they wouldn't have the time or energy."
Elected officials have proven to be more accountable, she asserts. "My attendance rate is 97 percent, and for the most part elected officials have higher attendance rates than appointees."
The problems perceived in the board's recent past did not come from too many people, but from natural turbulence, she argues. "I think you have some legislators who didn't like some of the board's decisions, and now they hope to put the governor in charge."
Who's really against it?
Jim Rogers, who brought years of prodigious business experience to the Chancellor's post when he was appointed by the board of regents in May 2005, because:
"They are responsible for all higher education in Nevada—eight institutions. In Arizona, the board is responsible for three. They don't handle the community colleges like we do. Regents are already working 30 hours per week, with no pay. Nine would work that much harder, and they wouldn't be any more effective.
"We don't need an appointed board, or a hybrid one. That would be a disaster. The public should retain their right to vote. Not give it to the governor."