New leadership has been a constant theme of late for UNLV, a school sweating and grinding to realize the goal set forth by Harter at the turn of the millennium: to become a major research institution, prestigious in its national rankings, and attractive to first-rate students across the globe. Besides Harter's stepping down, and the forthcoming retirements of Morgan and Flaherty, the dean of the dental school, Patrick Ferrillo, departed UNLV earlier this year, and legendary coach John Robinson left the football team in 2004, leaving open a position that in large part represents the school on a national level.
"People have left for different reasons,” says Dave Tonelli, director of public affairs at the university. "I don't think there's any real correlation among those individuals leaving.”
On one hand, it's true—all six of those leaders stepped down for individualized reasons, and it does not appear, nor has anyone said, that any one departure has influenced another. Morgan says he has accomplished not just his goals but also the invaluable summit of inner peace. Flaherty, at 62, is ready to immerse himself in his family, full-time. Ferrillo went to the University of Pacific to take on an identical position. Robinson got tired of losing. And Harter couldn't see eye-to-eye with her boss.
Yet on the other hand, all of those departures have occurred during Chancellor Jim Rogers' watch, which began in May 2004.
When asked about the trend of changing leadership at UNLV, Regent Linda Howard, who's earned a reputation for her outspoken temperament, says: "I don't think the regents know what's going on [with the changes]. Jim Rogers would be the one to talk to about that. So no comment.”
Jim Rogers says: "Let me stop you right there. The chancellor's job is to ensure that the strongest, most competent president is put in place. It's not his job to operate Nevada's eight institutions of higher learning.”
The truth is that Chancellor Rogers has no input when it comes to changes in leadership that occur below the president of UNLV, but it is the sovereign responsibility of the individual he had secured—the president—to manage those changes.
Regardless, that's the past. And it doesn't mean much to the students and faculty who are now busy trying to improve UNLV—to evolve the university into a major research center with more residencies and a more estimable reputation, both in and out of Las Vegas. What's important now, some of those students and faculty say, is what the new leadership has in store for the university.
"A good leader will set the tone,” says Morgan, who has been with the law school since its initiation in 1998. "I've always seen my job as rounding up the best group of people and empowering them, and providing them the necessary resources—money, support, advice, counsel, and anything else I can.”
Morgan says that new leadership is, by nature, not just a necessary but also a good thing. "We all at some point get set in our ways; we all lose energy,” he states. "New leadership guarantees a fresh dose of enthusiasm and energy, or that particular leader would not have been hired.”
The search for Morgan's replacement is a national one, says Tonelli. He adds that administration has been active and aggressive in finding someone to match—or at least come close to—Morgan's extraordinary skill level. The university had also surveyed the nation when searching for a new president earlier this year. David Ashley, an academic engineer versed in the field of complex construction planning, was appointed last July as UNLV's eighth president, and he has stated that his objective for UNLV is to channel the Valley's prosperous growth into the university. That is, to build off the culture of planning engendered by his predecessor and begin with the focused implementation of those planned projects for UNLV, such as managerial consultation.
As of right now, UNLV's search committee has four positions of leadership to fill—the three deans already mentioned, and the open seat in the college of education—and no matter who comes in, says Morgan, those leaders will have their own individual hopes and dreams for their respective schools.
"For the law school,” he says, "I don't anticipate the new dean's goals to change dramatically from mine. But he or she could definitely emphasize things I didn't emphasize, and with every change there will certainly be consequences of some sort.”
Rogers, a man with an extensive history in higher education and business generalship, says that he believes five to seven years is the optimal time frame for administrative leadership. And that's because most people tend to run out of new ideas and visions, as well as to become territorial, beyond that. Which is not a good thing, Rogers says. And further, he states:
"There are exceptions, especially with athletics, where a coach needs five years just to build a program. But for the most part I favor five-year stints in administration. I think long administrations reach their goals and get satisfied. New leaders aren't satisfied, and so they build off their predecessors. I think that's what we can expect at UNLV, but only time will tell if the changes are good or not.”