The following is a verbatim transcript of an open, informal meeting hosted by the GBC Faculty Senate in which questions were heard by GBC Regent Marcia Bandera concerning recent events surrounding the reassignment of Dr. Ronald K. Remington, former President of Great Basin College and the reassigned President of the Community College of Southern Nevada. After long discussion, it was agreed that a verbatim transcript would better allow members of the Senate and other interested parties the opportunity to personally interpret the proceedings without the influence of a third party perception of details. The meeting was recorded both through audio and VHS means and the transcript is based on both of these recordings. The tapes will be retained on file with all other Faculty Senate documents with copies circulated to interested parties.
Members Present: P. Anderson, P. Bagley, E. Bateman, P. Cortez, F. Daniels, K. Dannehl, S. Ehrmann, C. Eikenberry, H. Estes, P. Fisher, P. Fox, G. Goicoechea, D. Gonzales, M. Hall, E. Henderson, C. Hyslop, P. Josey, J. Kempster, J. King, J. Larson, M. LaSalle, J. Licht, K. Martin, M. McFarlane, C. McMullen, B. Murphy, E. Nickel, S. Neilson, S. Popeck, J. Rice, J. Rosenthal, L. Sanchez, K. Schwandt, G. Smith, Ja. Smith, P. Smith, T. Staley, S. Sweetwater, M. Swetich, G. Tenney, S. Thompson, S. Thomson, L. Uhlenkott, P. Warren, J. Williams
Others Present: S. Aiazzi, S. Alexander, M. Allen, M. Bandera, D. Baumann, A. DeBraga, C. Diekhans, J. Carpenter, W. Donnelli, B. Elliott, C. Ferry, L. Gallegos, L. Gilbert, R. Hammons, A. Harding, M. Harper-Harrison, L. Horton, S. Houk, P. Killpatrick, L. Mahlberg, N. Mahlberg, C. Marshall, R. McMullen, P. Merkley, J. Moore, S. Patterson, P. Phillips, U. Powers, K. Smith, H. Starkey, Y. Sutherland, A. Ulrich, C. Vaughn-Giles, P. Wilson
Paul Killpatrick: I guess we better get started in a minute or so. I think we only have air time ‘til about 4:30 and there are plenty of room..uh..rows in front if you want to sit here. It's not church so there won't be any collection or anything [laughter].
Marcia Bandera: I will be happy to sit back over here if you want to sit up here. [Laughter]
Paul Killpatrick: Anyway, I just want to preface this by saying that because of a lot of interest in the subject, I was asked to ask Marica if she would be willing to sit and address some of the issues that she can address, fully understanding that this is a personnel issue. Also, when I noticed that this was reappearing on the Board of Regents agenda for next week, that means that it appears that it's not over yet; so I called Marica and asked her, “Listen Marica, this still seems to be an active issue and anything could happen, for those of you who have attended a Board of Regents meeting, anything can happen in a Board of Regents meeting so this is still an active issue, do you still wish to address the faculty and staff?”, and she said, “Absolutely.” So again I want to preface this by saying that it is, uh, Regent Bandera's desire to share what she can share about a personnel issue and it is also, uh, Regent Bandera's, uh, decision to meet with you and talk because, um, she doesn't have to do this; I mean, she really doesn't have to do this. In fact, if I were her [laughter]... but, uh, Carl had the door and Pat had the door fitted with a metal detector so you all were checked before you came in here, so, that being said, I will turn it over to Regent Bandera, again, under the, uh, umbrella of, uh, professionalism and civility, and all those other things that go with it – this is an open forum with an open discussion and I want to recognize the folks in the outreach center like Frank Daniels. Are you there? Are you representing the outreach center, Frank?
Frank Daniels: I am representing, apparently, all of Northeastern Nevada today [laughter]. Uh, uh...I, I've, ah, as most of you are aware, I was asked to accumulate a list of questions from the Faculty and I have, ah, quite a long list of questions, actually. And, uh, I hope they have good questions and short answers. But I do indeed have plenty of questions. Uh, so, uh, yea, we are glad to have you here today, Regent B.
Marcia Bandera: Thanks.
Frank Daniels: Now, are you planning to say something first or shall we get into the questions?
Marcia Bandera: However you want to do it.
Frank Daniels: Okay. Well, we have questions and then if, you know, you need to say something then we'll say something. Now Pablo, were you able to extend the meeting?
Pablo Cortez: I extended it an additional 20 minutes, if you need more, just let me know.
Frank Daniels: Okay, yea, ‘cause I was hoping it would go ‘til 5:15. It'll give everybody a chance to speak who wants to speak. Heather, did you start the, the tape?
Heather Estes: Um, we have this thing recorded right now.
Frank Daniels: Splendid. Okay, that let's everybody know, you see, that, ah, being that this is an open forum we are taping the meeting for those who were unable to make it and anybody who just, for some reason, wants to watch the tape of a meeting. So, there we are. And as I said, uh, uh, these questions come from all over the place, um, from um, actually a large number of the, of the Faculty here have, have submitted questions and so I have had to kinda put them into what might be some semblance of an order, and, ah, we want you to know we are aware the differences between CCSN and Great Basin and between Las Vegas and Elko, and, ah, we are certainly not trying to equate them.
Now, the first question could, could make the other questions easier. We'll see. Uh, will you vote in favor of retaining President Remington at the December Board meeting? And, if not, why not.
Marcia Bandera: Um, good question. In fact just before I left the house at about a quarter to three, a reporter from the, uh, Review Journal called, apparently she's doing a poll of all the Regents wanting to know – her question was, “Can I as one of the Regents that voted on the side of the seven, uh, be persuaded to change my vote. My answer to her and my answer to all of you is this: [pause] I made the decision I made based upon the evidence over 1,000 pieces of paper which included authenticated documents, testimony from people involved, that was cross-walked, cross-checked, and, as I said, authenticated. I have never made a decision in my life that's not been based on evidence. I will make my decision for the December Board meeting, based upon the request by some Regents to rescind the previous decision, based upon whatever someone wants to present me as evidence that's authenticated, documented, that is pertinent in terms of me changing my mind. And, I don't know what that will be. I assume that the Regents who have called for that motion to be rescinded have some reasons why they believe that should be rescinded and documentation to support that. To go along with that, the Great Basin College resolution, ah, states that you also wish unanimously to have that decision of the Regents from November 20th rescinded. I assume somewhere there today, you'll tell me why. And, I should be taking that under consideration.
Frank Daniels: Okay. Um, we've read that, a... a number of us have...numerous news articles, ah, concerning what allegations were, were put forth, uh, which if these of any accurately convey the information as to the reasons behind, ah, the, the reassignment of President Remington?
Marcia Bandera: I have a question, ah, in answer to that – and I will answer it, hopefully shortly, Frank – um, I wondered has everyone or did all of you, Frank, I'll ask you, see the, um, press releases from the System...
Frank Daniels: Yeah..
Marcia Bandera: ...that were put out on November 20 and November 21st?
Frank Daniels: Yes, I, I have seen them, I know that some of the Faculty have seen them. I don't know that, that everyone has seen them.
Marcia Bandera: Okay....Um, those are probably the only ones that have laid out to the extent that they could, the issues that the Regents dealt with on the, during the special board meeting, the continuing special Board meeting. I too have read all of the newspaper articles, um, that have come from the Las Vegas newspapers, they seem to be generating the most information. And, no where did I see all of that laid out that was submitted to them. So, in answer to your question, the ones the System put out would have to be the closest to the factual ones that I could approve of.
Frank Daniels: Okay.
Marcia Bandera: And I brought those with me if everyone wants to take – I, um, you know, we could make copies you could have them for later.
Frank Daniels: Oh, ah, the, ah, the System comments basically said there was a vote and after an investigation, and this is what happened. They didn't, they did not give any reasons why. And now, the news articles that, that, yeah, that predominantly come from Las Vegas, all of them cite reasons.
Marcia Bandera: Hum-hum.
Frank Daniels: Ah, you know, a charge of insubordination based on certain bits of data that they'd, that they heard. Had they heard correctly? Or have they heard incorrectly?
Marcia Bandera: Um, I don't know. I believe some information has been, um, provided by some Regents, ah, based upon what may have occurred within the closed session. And, I am assuming that's based upon those particular Regents recall of the closed session, or their perception of what happened in the closed session. As far as I know, I had asked for the draft minutes of the closed session so that I could refresh my memory, um, prior to the December meeting and those are not yet available so I assume they're not available to anyone.
In the press release that was put out by the System, it talks about, ah, one, the process that was used, which some people have drawn, ah, conclusions about; and two, that the decision was made based upon allegations regarding, ah, personnel and unfair, um, personnel practices at CCSN. Those allegations, as you all know, and they were accurately mentioned - at least partially accurately mentioned in the Las Vegas newspapers – were based upon allegations that were first brought forward by Bridget Tapazia Jones.
The next comment that follows along with that, is that – or, I want...I read all those so many times, but I will say it this way, you can look at them yourself in terms of recalling from the newspapers in Las Vegas – the next commentary processed itself as the fact that we went out on a witch hunt . Um, and, and broadened the investigation and did not stick to the original allegations. Um... under the allegations of personnel unfair practices, ah, and personnel practices in general at CCSN, it is my opinion that the two-month investigation was not a witch hunt; that it in fact did not broaden anywhere other than where the information and the evidence lead it.
The next comment that was comment that was made, I think in the Las Vegas newspapers, is that the investigation, ah, was rushed. That is certainly relative depending on how you want to look at it. Ah, the investigator spent two solid months, ah, on this process, so...
Frank Daniels: Okay, thank you. Ah, some members of the Senate have questions concerning, ah, the private investigator's background, qualifications and experience with issues in higher education. Could you address that please?
Marcia Bandera: Um, I don't...were they questioning that the person was not qualified?
Frank Daniels: Um, there, there was, there's no assertion here that the person is not qualified, but we want to know what does qualify the investigator.
Marcia Bandera: The investigator has thirty plus years, um, doing investigations for the Internal Revenue Service. In his capacity, he did a number of very comprehensive investigations into dollars, and personnel, and where the money went, and into policies, and procedures, and rules, and regulations, and whether those are being abided – much like an audit, which is essentially what this sort of investigation included, which was look at personnel, ah, practices and whether those were unfair at CCSN.
Frank Daniels: And, any experience with higher education prior to...?
Marcia Bandera: I have no idea.
Frank Daniels: Okay. Um...Two of the Regents have reported that, that they wanted to open the meeting, ah, at certain points during the, during the closed session. Now, Dr. Remington could have opened the portion that was, ah, directed toward him. Was Dr. Remington asked for consent to open the meeting?
Marcia Bandera: Not in my hearing.
Frank Daniels: If he was there.
Marcia Bandera: Not in my hearing. Take me back, Frank, you said two Regents said what?
Frank Daniels: Uh, Regents Alden and Sisolak, specifically.
Marcia Bandera: Said what?
Frank Daniels: Said that, that, that, ah, they wanted to open the meeting at particular junctures during the, the session, now, ah, you know, myself not having been there, I don't know when that occurred. But, ah, they, they have since come out saying, uh, that, that motions were made at particular points to open the meeting, that at those points it should have been opened and that perhaps the Open Meeting Laws were violated. Does that remind you of the comments more?
Marcia Bandera: Ah, no, as a matter of fact. Um, as far as, again, what happens in the closed session, uh, all of us are to abide by the rules of confidentiality. So, I can't speak directly to what they're saying occurred in the closed session or not. I will say this: Um, the meeting when it came into open session was opened for all sorts of motions and activity. Um, no decisions were made about what motions would be made in private that would be then occurring in the open session. No one, there is no Regent, ah, on record, that I know of, following coming into the open session on November 20th, that did either of one of two things: no one requested to extend the meeting nor did they make a motion, and no one in the open session voted to bring in any witnesses in a closed session and then to go back into closed session in an extended meeting. You follow me?
[Pause]
Frank Daniels: Okay.
When a person is part of the discussion in a closed personnel session, the Open Meeting Law does allow that person to have a copy of the portion of the tape session in which he was discussed. Do you know whether, ah, Ron Remington and/or his legal council received those tapes so that they have a complete text of the closed meeting?
Marcia Bandera: I do not know at this time whether Dr. Cummings' or Dr. Remington's attorneys have requested that. I do know that...let's see...yes...I do know that the attorney for Dr. Remington has requested the complete record from the special session. Um, I have not asked the legal council whether or not they have provided that because unless they get permission from all other parties in the closed session, the entire record cannot be given at this point to a single party. I would add to that, in case its one of your questions cause its one that I have been asked outside of this arena, is whether or not we are going to release the entire record, the, ah, pages, the minutes, the closed meetings, the whole nine yards if you will, to the public. Um, the legal council for the System has sent requests to all of the parties involved to release that information to the general public. Ah, that was sent in writing to the people and to their legal representation and I did check this morning that the phone calls were, that they made phone calls to follow up to those legal representatives or people as to whether or not they would let us release that. So, there is no answer about whether we can release all of that to the public or not.
Frank Daniels: When was Dr. Remington informed in writing of the precise allegations giving rise to the charges against him?
Marcia Bandera: That I don't know.
Frank Daniels: Okay.
Uh, some people – actually this came up in the press – uh, since Chancellor Nichols was a participant in, in some of the things that went on, she had been asked to intervene, um, prior to the meeting, why was she permitted to speak during the meeting and why were her statements not challenged by other testimony or were they?
Marcia Bandera: All of the p-people involved, including Chancellor Nichols, were interviewed by the investigator and their remarks were noted down, typed ver..., ah, verbatim as they were given. The results of the investigation showed no involvement in the allegations by the Chancellor. The Chancellor is the Chancellor. One of the things that was brought up, I think in the open portion before we went into the closed portion was why should the Chancellor sit in there? And somebody made the comment that it would be uncomfortable for her. My response to that is, ah, she's the Chancellor; if something's uncomfortable for her that's not a problem, she has to carry out whatever the results are of the investigation. Um, so that's where it sits.
Frank Daniels: And did, did anyone speak in opposition to her testimony? Whatever she said during the meeting?
Marcia Bandera: Oh, the testimony was all the testimony when I mentioned that all the parties were interviewed, that trans-, testimony was transcribed verbatim in the documents that were provided to the closed session to the Board of Regents. Ah, we did not take testimony from her in the closed session.
Frank Daniels: Okay.
Um, what the, ah, central allegation that, that circulated in the press, that, um, that, ah, President Remington allegedly violated is, ah, a charge of insubordination. Give the definition of ‘insubordination' that was used by the Regents.
Marcia Bandera: The references to the allegations, um, for Dr. Remington, related to the insubordination and failure to obey directives and policy and code. Um, those are found within the Code as they relate to the rules and regulations for personnel and personnel actions.
Frank Daniels: Do you have a specific regulation...I mean, if, if he's being charged with insubordination, what exactly did that mean? In his case...
Marcia Bandera: It met with the failure on his part to follow the rules and regulations of the Code as they provide, as they are provided to all faculty and staff of the System and its institutions relating to personnel practices and hiring, etc.
Frank Daniels: Okay.
Um, and is this...where, where on file is the Board's written order that was violated by President Remington that constituted the grounds for insubordination? Are you saying that, that, ah, this is simply the Code itself?
Marcia Bandera: The what?
Frank Daniels: Was, it simply the Code itself, the UCCSN Code itself, that...
Marcia Bandera: The specific parts of the Code that deal with the already approved and laid-out policies and procedures and regulations dealing with personnel practices.
Frank Daniels: Was he ever given a specific directive, to your knowledge, that he violated, knowlingly?
Marcia Bandera: Ah, I don't know that you would need to have a specific directive when someone's hired on as President, ah, they are responsible for carrying out all of the directives and the rules and the responsibilities of the Code [pause] subject to change and approval.
Frank Daniels: Okay.
What, um...different, I guess, topic...what written law or policy was followed in convening the meeting and what written procedures were followed in conducting the meeting?...the closed session.
Marcia Bandera: Say the first one first.
Frank Daniels: What written law or policy was followed in convening the meeting?
Marcia Bandera: Ah...
Frank Daniels: And then what procedures were followed in the conduct of the meeting itself?
Marcia Bandera: The policies or procedures that we used for the special meeting are those that are laid-out under the Open Meeting Law, and, again, we were advised in terms of the process and the procedures that would be used by legal council.
Frank Daniels: Okay.
At a public meeting at CCSN last week, Regent Howard indicated that Board members has questions for Dr. Remington and that he was waiting outside to respond to the charges. Why then was he not permitted to speak nor to enter the meeting?
Marcia Bandera: There was not a consensus of the group to bring any witnesses in. The Regents who are saying that people could have been brought in if they had been allowed to be brought in did not make a motion in the open session to bring in witnesses or to bring people forward to hear the results of what may have been deliberated.
Frank Daniels: You said, ‘no motion was made during the open session.' I could follow that up. Did they make a motion during the closed session?...to bring in Mr., er, Dr. Cummings or Dr. Remington?
Marcia Bandera: I'm debating on whether I can answer that because it's the closed session. It's procedural so I'll go out on a limb and tell you, no.
Frank Daniels: Okay.
Um, one, ah, member asks, “given your own history and confidence in Dr. Remington in the past, why do you not insist that Dr. Remington answer the charges, ah, being made against him in the closed meeting?
Marcia Bandera: Good question. I looked at – and I'll say it again even though people are tired of it – over 1,000 pages of written testimony verbatim, authenticated documents that were cross-walked one to the other. I had all of the information I needed, based upon the evidence, to make a decision.
Frank Daniels: Okay.
What persons representing Dr. Remington or Dr. Cummings were permitted to cross-examine anyone who provided evidence against them, or who testified in the meeting against them?
Marcia Bandera: No one in the meeting, that I recall, testified against anyone. We reviewed all of the testimony and interview results that were in written form, verbatim, from the two-month investigation.
Frank Daniels: And was this challenged by representatives of, of Dr. Remington or Dr. Cummings?
Marcia Bandera: I'm sure its being challenged now.
Frank Daniels: Oh, I meant then.
Marcia Bandera: Ah, no...
Frank Daniels: I'm sure the question meant that during the meeting.
Marcia Bandera: Okay. Um, representatives of..? No.
Frank Daniels: The attorneys or themselves.
Marcia Bandera: No. Now again, let's be fair and be honest, there was no one there to do that in the closed session. So, it is not as if no one, no representative for them challenged it, it's that they were not there to do that. So...no written notes were passed that I know of.
Frank Daniels: At, ah, at what point was Dr. Remington or his attorney given the written report of the investigation?
Marcia Bandera: The written report of the investigation has not been provided to anyone. Um, the legal council for Dr. Remington has requested the complete record of the special meeting and the minutes and the outcomes. That information would be provided, the complete record, if all other parties involved in the investigation signed the waiver allowing that to happen. That's the same process for us to make that public to the public. I assume that the legal council for Dr. Remington can ask for only those portions that mention nobody else's name, have nobody else's name on a document, and that can be provided. Whether that part too has been requested, I don't know.
Frank Daniels: Ah, there was a follow-up that asked, ah, was he allowed to make a rebuttal to that report before the Regents' decision? But, I guess, if, if he didn't see it, the answer would be ‘no.'
Marcia Bandera: Yeah, the answer would be ‘no.'
Frank Daniels: Okay.
Ah, Regent Sisolak indicated in the, in the, ah, other newspaper, that there was insufficient time to digest the 1,000-page report. Um, there was something in there about not being able to take it home. Um, I guess that's, that's, ah, that went along with it. In an answer to an interview question he said that, ‘he hoped nobody had gone in there with a preordained answer.' Do you know if anyone discussed the report or the investigation, uh, with members of the board prior to the official meeting? [Pause] In other words, were there deliberations going on, I think is the, the question – before the meeting itself convened on the 17th?
Marcia Bandera: I could only speak to what I know, Frank. No one discussed it with me.
Frank Daniels: Okay.
The, the Remington's have called into question Regent Anthony's remark that quote “detailed statements”, quote, end quote, from Dr. Remington and Dr. Cummings were used by the Regents in formulating their opinions. What were these detailed statements in, ah, Dr. Remington's case – provided something in writing? Yes or no?
Marcia Bandera: Did he provide something in writing?
Frank Daniels: Right.
Marcia Bandera: Or were his responses to interview questions and review of documents put in writing?
Frank Daniels: Hmmm – both..yeah....
Marcia Bandera: I'm not trying to be tricky. I'm trying to tell you what you want to know.
Frank Daniels: I know, I know. I'm trying to read the intent of the question...
Marcia Bandera: Okay.
Frank Daniels: What, what was, what was....
Marcia Bandera: Ah, there was no...
Frank Daniels: ...he able to put forward?
Marcia Bandera: There was no document in the 1,000 pages that was a compilation of comments that was signed off at the bottom by Dr. Remington. All parties that were interviewed had their responses transcribed verbatim and were included in the information.
Frank Daniels: Hmmm..Okay, that, that raises I guess a question from me. Ah, since...did, did they have access to the remainder of what had already been said before they gave their statements, or were their statements just collected all at the same time, which is what I am kind of imagining, and then put into the report?
Marcia Bandera: No. The process that the investigation included checking statements and documents with other people, uh, more than one person.
Frank Daniels: So they, so they went back and forth and would have asked someone else a question and then, maybe, President Remington and then...you see what I'm saying? They, they're trying...
Marcia Bandera: Not by of all the same group that they...
Frank Daniels: ...in other words to attempt to verify or, or
Marcia Bandera: they...they...
Frank Daniels: ...okay
Dr. Cummings sent a memo November 10 to Regent Howard that he made, which he made public and raised serious questions about the motives of Mr. Larry Braxton. What weight was given to Mr. Braxton's allegations, if any, many of which were reported in the memo and are clearly vindictive in nature given that Mr. Braxton and Dr. Remington have never met.
Marcia Bandera: Um, there was a list of allegations from the person. Uh, there was a list of allegations from other people. All of those were followed up; all allegations were cross-walked through all sorts of questions of people and documents. I don't know if one got more weight than the other.
Frank Daniels: Okay, uh...This question, I think, I partly know the answer to, um, since I've seen it in Dr. Cummings's case. Does the Board plan to try to take away tenure from the two removed officials?
Marcia Bandera: There's been no motion or effort to make any statement about tenure regarding Dr. Remington. Ah, the motion, if I could read it to you as near as I was able to get it because they're not been transcribed yet. In fact, at some point I would like to go through all the motions that were made because I don't think that's ever been printed anywhere. But, in response to your question ... [pause – looking through note cards]...I think it was...these are my notes, so you can take this tape and prove me wrong if you wish to... I think it was about the fifth motion. It was to direct the Interim President or Chancellor, if there was no Interim President available, to reassign John Cummings to faculty status immediately and to prohibit him from serving as an administrator without a majority vote of the Board in the future, and, have the Board Chair select a Code Officer to review and evaluate the materials in the investigation per-, pertaining to Mr. Cummings, and if warranted, initiate a Chapter 6, of the Code, termination procedure for a tenured faculty member. That motion, if I recall correctly, was made by Regents Hill and seconded by Regent Kirkpatrick, and it passed on a 9 to 4 vote.
Frank Daniels: Okay...Um...but nothing regarding Dr. Remington?
Marcia Bandera: No.
Frank Daniels: Ah, the Review Journal reports that quote “in Remington's whistleblower complaint he said that he supported the managerial decision to fire a non-performing, probationary employee, and did not agree with the Chancellor's reversal of that firing.” In his words, “I was fired for what I believe was the right thing to do.” Ah, to what extent is Remington correct?
Marcia Bandera: I have not heard that until such time as that was printed in the paper recently. That allegation had not been brought forward.
Frank Daniels: Okay. Um, how do I word this...[pause]. There was concern expressed...ooo, severe echo [pause]. Okay. There's concern expressed that a, that...there's an echo, just a second...um, that Chairman of the Board of Regents went on television to say that, that the charges were very serious and then did not share these concerns with, with, ah, his constituents, with the, the people. Um. could this be regarded as an attempt to deflect public concerns over the, the nature of the termination procedure?
Marcia Bandera: Um, I cannot speak for – are you talking about Chairman Anthony? Chair of the Board of Regents?
Frank Daniels: Yes, Ma'am.
Marcia Bandera: Ah, I cannot speak for him. I don't...I will have to say I cannot imagine, ah, that that's why Dr., uh, Chairman Anthony made that comment. And, I don't know that he would make any comment to deflect, ah, something from the investigation. Ah, people have raised numerous questions about what's happened and what's gone on, and, as far I know, Chairman Anthony has shared as much information as he's been allowed to share based upon the confidentiality and legal advise.
Frank Daniels: Ah....I think that's it for the, the general questions. Ah...could have some possible follow-ups depending what all comes off during this meeting. Ah...so are there, are there any other members of faculty or others present who have questions for the, for Regent Bandera?
Star Thomson: It seems like...there...because I'm familiar with audits...
Marcia Bandera: Would you mind standing up so everyone could hear or could see you?
Star Thomson: Okay.
Marcia Bandera: Or hear you?
Star Thomson: I'm Star Thomson, Controller. In, in my experience with audits and investigations, um, because I have experience as an auditor, um – information is found and it, um, it....lots of times you can come to conclusions erroneously even if you have cross-information and, so I, I'm a little bit troubled not knowing all the information that's involved. But I'm also, I also see infractions that, that mistakes are made commonly. That, that, um, in committees there are procedures that are violated...what was it that made this such a, a bad thing to fire the President rather than reprimand him...in some other form?
Marcia Bandera: Um, you've had experience with audits, so as you said you were troubled. Um, I too have had experience with audits, or reviews, or investigations and a lot of people in this room have. Um, it was not just a matter of finding an allegation or a slip-up or an unsigned form. Ah, there was a great deal of information that was looked at and it wasn't just checked with one person, it was checked with all parties involved or all of those to whom it related to. Um, I can't share any more with you then that, um, and that puts me at a disadvantage. Um, I did ask legal council this morning what I could share. Um, a number of Regents have shared a number of things that were in the closed session, so I made the assumption that perhaps I could as well. Ah, I was told I could not and I'm not going to. And I apologize for that. And I'll leave you to make a conclusion.
Star Thomson: And, and what would make this infraction so bad that it would lead to firing rather than some other kind of reprimand?
Marcia Bandera: If you get a chance to see all of the information and with your background and expertise then you'll know that answer.
Yes, Sir.
Ed Nickel: It seems to me....
Marcia Bandera: Do you mind standing?
Ed Nickel: Certainly. I'm Ed Nickel, ah, professor here. Ah, It seems to me, ah, I'm troubled by the process, the procedure. Ah, you have some, an interviewer whose going back and forth interviewing people and saying, “well he said, she said,” and, ah, here's the compilation, here's the, ah, um, verbatim comments. Ah, I believe that in the Constitution of the United States, before anyone can be deprived of their liberty or their property, they have the right to confront their accusers, and testify or bring testimony from other witnesses, themselves, that maybe this investigator did not interview, that might mitigate the circumstances. According to what you have said, Ron Remington has never been accorded this, yet he has been deprived of his job...which is property, in this case. Are you concerned at all about the Constitutionality of the procedure that you have used? Ah, someone has been severely, ah, hurt, damaged – his reputation has been damaged, his income has been damaged, ah, by this process that to me is quasi-, or at extra-constitutional – it's outside the Constitution of the United States. Has that ever occurred to anybody on the Regents, that this procedure might have issues that could be very far reaching – that's what bothered me more than anything else about this entire process. I don't know, obviously, what, ah, evidence was presented to you or how it might have been done, it's how it was, how it was handled, and how, ah, Dr. Remington was not allowed, or was not even asked to participate in any way, shape or form, to present mitigating, um, information to you. Ah, you base this on some third party who may or may not have a complete story regardless of a two-month investigation.
Marcia Bandera: Does it bother me? Um, the Constitutionality of it?
Ed Nickel: The entire process, yes. I'm deeply disturbed by this.
Marcia Bandera: Um, the questions were asked of legal council about the process and the procedures that we should be using and we followed those. Um, whether those are something that people accept or not accept, that's something each person will have to decide for themselves. Um, as far as whether Dr. Remington or anyone else was afforded due process? Um, the process for Presidents, ah, is in the Code, it talks about re-assignment of administrators in the Code. The fact that they work at the pleasure of the Board and they can be re-assigned without any hearing, without any reason given, if you want to do that. Um, and that's in the Code and that's in the Presidential contracts. And we followed the process based upon the legal advise given to us.
Frank Daniels: Can you give me, the, ah, chapter and verse in the Code where it says a president can be reassigned...
Marcia Bandera: Sure.
Frank Daniels: ...without, ah, any reason given?
Marcia Bandera: The re-assignment of administrators, ‘cause I looked this up, ah, is in the UCCSN Code, Chapter 5, Section 5.4.8. And, it's also included in administrator's contracts which are public documents...presidential contracts which are public documents.
[Pause]
Yes, Ma'am.
Genie Goicoechea: Um, Genie Goicoechea. I'm an instructor here. I'd like to have you address the closeness of the vote. If the documents are so forthright about the charges, then how is it that 6 out of 12 people did not see it that way. And, I also question whether the vote wasn't 6 to 6 given the fact that isn't Mr. Kirkpatrick's vote even called into question because he brought forth the allegations which would mean that Ron Remington lost so much in a, in a very marginal situation when the vote is 6 to 7 or 6 to 6. And, I, I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.
Marcia Bandera: Um, I was surprised that is was 7 to 6. But, I made my decision based upon what I saw. I assume that the other 6 made their decision the same way. Um, we go by our vote down the alphabet, so no one knows how anyone votes unti..unless you're at the bottom of the alphabet. So, as far as whether people's votes were influenced by other peoples?, I have no idea.
Genie Goicoechea: That's not my question. My question is, is 6 to 7 not too close to, to demote a president? I mean, ah, clearly the evidence is not that strong.
Marcia Bandera: It may have...It was strong to 7 and not strong to 6. It was strong to me. I can't answer it any other way.
Frank Daniels: Okay. Ah... ah... I agree with the provision in the Code states such an administrator may be removed from the administrative position without cause, reasons or right of reconsideration, ah, must be re-assigned. Um, but now certainly, ah, there are, there are legal extents to which that must be true, for example, if you, if you did not like, ah, President Killpatrick because of the color of his skin, you certainly just couldn't get rid of him because you didn't like him. I mean, there are, there are, even though this says without cause, reasons or right of reconsideration, there are laws of the United States that supercede this that would say that, ah, you can't just get rid of someone for any reason.
Marcia Bandera: Hmm...
Frank Daniels: So, um, maybe the Code itself needs to be re-looked at. Similarly, ah, yes, ah, it says in the you serve at the pleasure of the, of the Board, but that's not simply, you know, you coughed on me you're fired.
Marcia Bandera: That's right, Frank.
Frank Daniels: I mean, there are, there are limits to this. Okay.
Mike McFarlane: Yeah, just, a...I'm Mike McFarlane. I'm a professor here and, ah...Yeah, I think the reason that so many people are concerned is because a lot of us know Ron Remington very, very well, and, ah, I find it very difficult to believe that, that this could occur to him just be...on the basis of all our past cumulative knowledge of him. And then, for this to occur without him being able to say a word in his own defense and to have it completely locked up so nobody knows what happens – um. I think everybody just feels there's been a great wrong done. I don't care what the legalities in the Code say. None of us here feel that this is right unless something comes out in the open to us.
[Slight applause]
Marcia Bandera: And I don't blame you for feeling that way.
Russ McMullen: Marcia?
Marcia Bandera: Yes.
Russ McMullen: My question, I guess, is to follow up on that one, is that... was any consideration...we are recipients of a great deal of good work with Dr. Remington cause to happen in Elko.
Marcia Bandera: Hmm-hmm.
Russ McMullen: My question was any consideration given to the record or the standing of the man and his, his record of accomplishments over the years in this consideration, in this deliberations at all? Or was it just, just focused on only the investigation part?
Marcia Bandera: I don't suppose any human being ever can put out of their mind what a person has done and who they are at the final dark moment of having to make a decision. Um, were all those things weighed in my mind? I'm the only one that I can speak for, is me. And, I will tell you, I weighed everything in my mind before I made my decision. And I made that decision well-knowing that it probably wouldn't be understood or liked by others.
[Pause]
Danny Gonzales: Marica...
Marcia Bandera: Yes.
Danny Gonzales: Can you give us an overview of what's to come? I know the Board is meeting in a few weeks, ah, ah, it's on the agenda for the Board of Regents, are you going to be going back into closed-door session, you know, is, is a, Ron going to be, is he going to have an opportunity to address, ah, you know, what has occurred, you know, with this motion, or, or what's the process?
Marcia Bandera: I don't know. Ah, the agenda has an item to reconsider, ah, to rescind, to reconsider or to rescind, ah, the actions that were taken as result of the special session of November 20th. The interesting part of people bringing that decision forward, and I want to make this clear so that all understand, you know, what the facts are, um, in this particular part – the motion to rescind by Robert's Rules of Order is not debatable. If I were making a motion to rescind, I would probably not make that the motion. If I want to solve something. I would probably make a motion to hold a personnel session to include dada, dada, dada...whatever person it is that you wish to speak about. Because if you have mo...it was the same thing and Steve [Houk] was outraged as a student I think by the Board of Regents not reconsidering, ah, when they went to rescind their motion on the UNLV fee increase, that motion ...the rescinding of a previous action is not a debatable item. If you want to get the information forward, and you want to have something else occur, then you need to make the move to do that.
Danny Gonzales: So that probably wasn't the intent of the four Regents to have that agenda item...um...
Marcia Bandera: It's in writing from the four Regents.
Danny Gonzales: Hmm-hmm.
Marcia Bandera: So, I don't know. I'm not speaking for anyone else because I can't.
Karen Martin: Um, ah, Karen Martin. Ah [side one of cassette tape ends], one of the things that strikes me is, it seems like may the laws are so complex. I'm wondering if some of the Regents are not smart enough to really figure out; you know, don't they understand what Robert's Rules of Order what ‘rescind' means. It makes me wonder about the confidence I can put in the Board of Regents who really control me.
Marcia Bandera: That's a good point. I don't know if they're that complex. The motions to rescind have been made before by some of the same people. So, I don't know what they're thinking, I have not a clue. It's not been shared with me. It may before the meeting. I assume we'll get more information before the meeting about why.
Yes Ma'am.
Kathy Schwandt: Hi. Kathy Schwandt, an instructor here. I have two questions. The first, um, when Dr. Remington was interviewed by the investigator was he interviewed more than once? Was he interviewed initially and then the facts checked and then was he addressed again? You know, like a conversation kind of thing so he could respond to what other people had to say?
Marcia Bandera: You know, I don't know. I don't know. I know that people's statements were verified with other people's statements and there was some going back and forth for verification. I can't remember how that went. Um, hopefully we'll be able to find that out and share that with you. I can't recall that off the top of my head.
Kathy Schwandt: Um, and my other question is....what is it? [slight laughter]...oh...in the, in the papers, some of the, um, information has been than Dr. Remington was also demoted because he was trying to make CCSN a four-year college behind the Regents' back or behind the Chancellor's back, and yet, it seems that the only charge, or the whatever it is called, are personnel issues having to do with the one individual. Ssss....which is it? Is it both? Does the four-year college thing have anything to do with anything, or is that...
Marcia Bandera: There were some personnel allegations that related to going out, that were involved in going out and trying to have a four-year program or piece of legislation put together for a four-year program that was not approved by the Board of Regents or the Chancellor.
Kathy Schwandt: And were those personnel issues with the one person involved?
Marcia Bandera: I can't say that.
Steve Houk: Steve Houk, Student Body President. I was just wondering if you were able to further review the 1,000-page document since this special meeting were having disclosed the [inaudible]. Have you been able to read further, or...?
Marcia Bandera: No.
Yes, Ma'am
Laura Gallegos: Based on what...I'm Laura Gallegos, and based on what Kathy Schwandt said, you said that you made your decision on the, I mean, the 1,000-page document, um, from persons cross-checked back and forth. And you just said there wasn't any comments from Dr. Remington in that report...
Marcia Bandera: No, no, no – no-no, I didn't...go ahead.
Laura Gallegos: And I was just wondering, you know, if there were people accusing back and forth but not having Dr. Remington's input into that, how you could then make that decision and vote against him?
Marcia Bandera: No. What I said, if you were asking at a previous time whether there was a written summary or written report or written something in some sort of a, ah, report or long form that was signed-off and included as some rebuttal, no. Ah, there were, as I mentioned, transcribed verbatim results and responses of interviews that were verifying what people said, ah, one with the other.
Yes Ma'am
Jan Kempster: Um, Jan Kempster. I'm an instructor. Along the lines of what Laura just said, you said you made your decision based on evidence. And, I guess what I have the most trouble with is given the fact of your history knowing Ron and his efforts here at this college, why was it not important to hear him out?
Marcia Bandera: For me, I had the information from responses and verbatim interview responses that I felt hung together for me.
Yes Sir.
Eric Henderson: I'm Eric Henderson. I'm an instructor here. Um, I just have a sort of a technical question. In the process of these verbatim interviews then the investigator would prepare the verbatim interviews and then these would be checked by the person who was interviewed and signed-off for accuracy. Is that correct?
Marcia Bandera: I believe so.
Yes Ma'am.
Betty Elliott: Betty Elliott. How long did you have and the other Regents have to read this 1,000-page investigative report?
Marcia Bandera: Um, the meeting on the 17th began at 11 and we ended somewhere around 8:30-8:35 with a few breaks in there. Um, I spent most of my breaks reading material as well. On the..go ahead..on the 20th we then met – I didn't get there until roughly 12:35, ah, and they had just gone into closed session and then we got done that night, I can't remember, 8, 8:15, 8:30, something like that.
Betty Elliott: So you did not have a chance to read it before you went to the meeting.
Marcia Bandera: No. Ah, the investigator...well, the legal council took us through the document, that's why it took so long.
Pat Josey: Marcia, I'm Pat Josey. Um, you said, I think you said that, um, it was, that you could only vote to rescind or not rescind in this meeting that had the rescission [sic], um on it, on the agenda. Is it too late to make the other kind of motion that you said that you might have made otherwise to hold a personnel meeting and invite all the interested parties that could attend that...
Marcia Bandera: Ah...
Pat Josey: ...before that vote is made?
Marcia Bandera: I think it is ‘cause the agenda's out. What I was saying is I don't know why the Regents who called for the rescission [sic] motion when we just had one that was identified as not debatable, why that was the motion they ended up with, this going, this coming up on, in December.
Pat Josey: Well, I was just wondering if there was some other way to attack the problem of having, or to approach the problem of Ron's having a hearing, ‘cause I think that's what the big contention is here. That's the way I felt. He did not have a say, it was something that came out. I was just wondering if it was too late for you to make such a motion...
Marcia Bandera: Ah, the agenda...
Pat Josey: ...to get it on the agenda...
Marcia Bandera: Done, yeah.
Pat Josey: It's done.
Marcia Bandera: Yeah.
Chris Mitchell: I have a question over here, I'm sorry you can't see me.
Marcia Bandera: Oh, sure.
Chris Mitchell: I am a Classified Employee and I've been a Classified Employee for nearly eight years now, and I was very, very upset that it seems to me, um, and I did email you on this, that no matter how well I do my job, it doesn't matter. It matters, basically who I know, who I have a relationship with, and, as a Classified Employee who has State laws governing her employment, it's very troubling to us, because basically what we feel has been said is it doesn't matter how our performance evaluations read, what matters is who you know. And, for somebody who has made her career out of a State agency, that's very disheartening. And, it seems very, very unfair.
Marcia Bandera: Okay. Okay. That's fair.
Genie Goicoechea: So that, so that brings us another question...oh, excuse me...Has been Dr. Remington been evaluated in the job before this closed hearing and ... is that public information... his general evaluation as president?
Marcia Bandera: His evaluation, ah, that was on schedule for his periodic evaluation would have been, I think, it's either November 5th, 6th, 7th or November 6th and 7th, I'm not sure. I have not seen a report of that evaluation.
Genie Goicoechea: So you did not see that evaluation before this closed meeting although it was two weeks prior?
Marcia Bandera: Right. It was not written yet as, as I understand it.
Pat Josey: Ah, so you're saying to us, I think, that the only thing Ron can do is to have his say in court. Is that what, is that what I'm hearing?
Marcia Bandera: I don't know. If the Board decides to rescind their previous action then they can take some other action.
Pat Josey: Oh. All right. All right, that's what I needed.
Star Thomson: It seems a lot of weight was put on this 1,000-page document, for the evidence. Do you know was that document prepared by one individual, one investigator, or was it a team of investigators that might have been able to collaborate at all?
Marcia Bandera: It was my understanding that all of the information was authenticated with personnel at the college with people and with people who were interviewed. That, that items were very...for real. Then the legal council, uh, Walt Ayers and the general council, Tom Ray, looked at all the information and checked it and looked at it before it was finally packaged. But I don't know that because I didn't talk to them, but that's what I was told.
Star Thomson: So it's one investigator that originally compiled it?
Marcia Bandera: That's correct.
Star Thomson: Okay.
Marcia Bandera: Yes Sir.
Mike Hall: There's no no way of ch...Mike Hall...no way of cross-checking the investigator? With the stakes on something like this things can, I'm sorry to say, be falsified. Just a thought.
Marcia Bandera: The documents were cross-checked with those people who should know whether those documents are authentic or not. Including the people as part, as, who were interviewed as part of the investigation.
Mike Hall: But considering the personalities involved....
Marcia Bandera: I don't know...what you mean by considering the personalities.
Frank Daniels: Well there, there may be, ah, Dr. Hall means this: there is, there is some information coming out from a-, allegations surfacing from these individuals that clearly had an axe to grind, well, of course, that they would all say bad things. Ah, I could find ten people to say bad things about me and get myself fired. [Laughter] I could do it.
Danny Gonzales: Frank, you could find 30 or 40.
[Laughter]
Frank Daniels: Maybe more – Right. You know, what confidence can we have that, ah, one person, ah, obtaining corraboration from a, from a minority of people is certainly provides something reliable? How did the Regents know that that information is reliable?
Marcia Bandera: When you see the document, and hopefully it will be released, you will be able to review all of that for yourself. And, you will be able to see what the cross-walks and the verifications were. Um, you say why should you believe that it was inaccurate or falsified or were not falsified or whatever...
Frank Daniels: Yeah, that it was inaccurate.
Marcia Bandera: ...why would you believe it was anything but accurate? That's a rhetorical question.
Frank Daniels: Yeah, well, I, like, again, I can see from some of these things that were said, ah, quote, ah...let's see, let's get...Mr., Mr. Braxton...um, regarding a man named Frank Lasis of whom I have not heard, ah, “after being rebuffed by Patty, Frank made an appointment with Dr. Remington to discuss the salary inequity. Dr. Remington told Frank that he could not override Patty's decision. No wonder Frank did not get an interview for the Chief Campus Administrator position at Charleston,” ah, “he was not even allowed to interview for the position at the Charleston Campus when it was advertised. Why didn't he receive an appointment as did” some other guy. “He was subsequently transferred and serves as a gopher for Bob Gilbert who was side-kick of Patty Charlton and John Cummings.” Ah, this language is clearly biased and the information is rumored. And from, from the rebuttal indicates, ah, Mr. Lasis said no, none of that happened that way. So here's a man reporting that someone else told him about someone else's conversation with President Remington, whom he never met. If this is the sort of information that there, that, that's in that report, I wouldn't want to believe any of it.
Marcia Bandera: Unfortunately, you don't get to see all the checking that was done, so you don't know whether or not that, and that was not all that's relied upon.
Frank Daniels: I hope not.
Marcia Bandera: Ah...Sir.
Stan Aiazzi: Uh, I think that what Frank's saying that, I have a [inaudible] a feeling he's accurate is that you hire a consultant and it often points back to the consultant [inaudible]. And good consultants always do that [inaudible]. I think there is some concern about this. That it's biased, potentially. But, it seems to me that a rational person would have said, let's have one other person and see what they come up with. I'm just concerned that they came up with ... if you go on a fishing trip for trout you are generally going to come home with trout.
Marcia Bandera: Interesting perspective, not one that I agree with.
Yes.
Tammy Staley: You indicated that you based your decision on facts. But you also indicated that you had a very short amount of time to review the evidence and that it was such a large document and you have not been able to review it further. Do you think that it was possible that you could've made a decision that was maybe incorrect as several other of the Regents did because there seems to be significant number Regents who felt opposed to that.
Marcia Bandera: I did not indicate that we had a limited amount of time to review it. Other Regents have said they felt there was a limited amount of time and it may have been a comment that was made here today. I had quite a bit of time to look at it and I looked at it very carefully. Whether the other Regents felt they had insufficient time or not, I don't know. I can only go by their comments in the newspaper.
Tammy Staley: So you don't believe an error was made?
Marcia Bandera: I do not.
There was a hand over here.
Genie Goicoechea: Oh, it's just me again. [Laughter]
Marcia Bandera: No, no I thought there was someone, I thought there was somebody behind you but okay. Go ahead.
Genie Goicoechea: I'm just left with the feeling that there's so much we won't ever see. That there, none of this is in hard copy, and that's very disturbing to me. That Dr. Remington's evaluation of the 5th and the 6th, 15 days before, has not been ready, that we will not, that the, that the minutes of your meeting have not been transcribed and apparently will not be public, and that the 1,000-word document, or page document will eventually, we will eventually see it, but there is no, there's no real information offered to the public here. I mean, that's just a comment, it's not a question.
Marcia Bandera: And, that's a correct comment. Um, we have asked all of the people that we can ask for permission to release the entire record, including the minutes. If those releases come through, then you'll get ‘em.
Kathy Schwandt: Do you anticipate those releases coming through?
Marcia Bandera: I have no idea. If people are saying that those, that that information should be made public, so we have made that request.
Kathy Schwandt: Are you amenable to having all the information made public?
Marcia Bandera: Oh, absolutely.
Kathy Schwandt: Would you like for it to be?
Marcia Bandera: I have not a problem with that.
Kathy Schwandt: Would you prefer it to be?
Marcia Bandera: Um, given the fact that people have questions about it?, if people want to give waivers waiving their confidentiality, ah, about that information, then I think it ought to be given to everyone.
[Inaudible]
Unidentified: So who are the people that have to waive their....
Unidentified: Marcia...
Marcia Bandera: Just a sec...there's still a per....Oh [laughter].
[Please note: The video did not record the questions from the overflow room. Transcript provided exclusively by audio cassette tape.]
Lori Gilbert: I'm in the next room for this standing room only venue. Marcia, thank you,..Hi. [Laughter] It's Lori Gilbert.
Marcia Bandera: Okay.
Lori Gilbert: Excuse me. I, I happen to notice, um, that you seem a little surprised, in fact you said, ah, that, ah, when Dr. Remington filed his whistleblower complaint, that maybe that was news to you. Uh, knowing now what, what you do about that, on, on Dr. Remington's thoughts about why he thinks he was fired? I mean, does that alter your thinking in any way, Marcia, since you and the other Regents didn't get a chance to, to talk to Dr. Remington about these allegations?
Marcia Bandera: Um, are you referring to the newspaper article that said about whistleblower status, I think it was in the Elko Daily Free Press, that he was fired because he refused to follow or didn't agr-, agreed with the managerial decision to terminate a clerical employee?
Lori Gilbert: Regarding Bridget Jones. I mean, see what it sounds like is that this, this, the reason he was fired is secondary to the initial investigation. I mean, something was uncovered during this investigation. Obviously president's are evaluated and he's received a recent evaluation that was not unfavorable, then this must have been news to, ah, Chancellor Nichols. Whatever these allegations are or contain upon which you made your decision.
Marcia Bandera: Um, I assume so because she was not privy to the course of the investigation until such time as it was completed. As far as the complaint that Dr. Remington was fired because of not abiding by the decision to terminate Bridget Jones originally, ah, or to not, or to, to stop doing that or agreeing to do that, um, I, that didn't play into it as far as I know.
Lori Gilbert: Okay, so. Another, this, Marica, the last few days and I know I talked to you earlier and lots of people have talked to you. Ah, your thoughts are not altered on this process or your decision?
Marcia Bandera: Not until I finish tonight. Ah, one of the reasons I came here was to hear issues people had. Um, so until I think about that, ah, I won't be able to make a decision. It's like I told the lady from the RJ that called me. Ah, nor as I said earlier, ah, there may be more information that the Regents that are calling for a rescinding of the previous action, they may be bringing some more information forward before the meeting. I don't know. And, I'll wait and see. Um, but, coming into today, ah, my mind was made up based upon what I saw and what evidence I was able and did review, and I'll listen to what anyone has to say. But, I won't make any guarantees about changing my mind.
Lori Gilbert: Well as Vice Chairman, a person who's a leader and a leader in this community for a long time, Marica, are you capable of, of going back in and looking at things differently if necessary? I mean, how would you initiate the process if it becomes available to either reverse this or reconsider this in some way?
Marcia Bandera: How would I initiate the process? I would have to...
Lori Gilbert: Would you do it? Would you be involved in initiating the process? I mean, you are Vice Chairman of the, of the Regents.
Marcia Bandera: Hmm-hmm, hmm-hmm.
Lori Gilbert: Because some people feel that the Chairman made several mistakes, so maybe it's time for the Vice Chairman to try to take the lead. [Laughter]
Marcia Bandera: Well, ah, I'll, I'll have to figure out what people think in terms of what, ah, Chairman Anthony did that were mistakes. I don't know what those are. Um, as far as the Vice Chairman stepping in and taking over, ah, I don't know that that's going to happen. Um, but I will think about what people have told me today and until we conclude this session and whatever information came forward, um, and also all the other information or phone calls that I'm getting from people who do not think that 7 people made the wrong decision.
Lori Gilbert: Going back to just that question, Marica, have you heard anything that has made you think twice? Have you heard anything yet today to this moment, since you've been on campus or the days previous?
Marcia Bandera: Ah, I don't know that yet. I'll make up my mind about that.
Lori Gilbert: Thank you.
Marcia Bandera: Hmm-hmm.
Kathy Schwandt: How can people agree with the decision knowing as little as we all know? How can anybody agree or disagree, really?
Marcia Bandera: I don't know why they're thinking about that. I just...
Kathy Schwandt: We disagree because we know Dr. Remington and we don't, we think, I think like Star [Thomson] that it seems pretty harsh...
Marcia Bandera: I don't know why people agree or, or disagree, other than what they based that on for themselves.
Genie Goicoechea: I think one thing...
Marcia Bandera: Just a second there's a lady here that just said...
Pauline Fisher: Oh I was just, I was just, you were saying that all the parties involved had to give permission for this to be released. So, is this Bridget Jones, is she one of the people that has to...ah, approve?...for this stuff to be release?
Marcia Bandera: Yep.
Pauline Fisher: So, what do you think the chances to...?
Marcia Bandera: I have no idea.
Unidentified: ...sign off? It doesn't sound like that would be in her, not in her best interest?
Marcia Bandera: I have no idea. She made allegations and signed them originally, so I don't know where she would be on that. And, if you want to change that under the Open Meeting Law or the University System Code, that may be an action you want to take in terms of personnel.
Pat Josey: I think, I think that, the problem about the thing about democracy we all grew up with is that, you know, when something happens to you, you should have a say in it. I think that's the big thing. Um, if, if we rescinded this vote, if the Regents rescinded the vote, then could Ron have a say? I mean, could he face the charges among the Regents or in a meeting? He didn't get to say anything; he, he was outside the session, and that's – and he was not allowed to speak on his own behalf.
Marcia Bandera: He was not at the time – there was no motion made in the open session by any Regent to have people come back in and talk to the Regents, whether that was in an open or closed session. All 13 Regents, including myself, which someone alway...already said ‘why didn't you,' um, no one made that motion, regardless of the ones that are saying that now.
Pat Josey: I was just trying to, to figure out...
Marcia Bandera: But in answer to your...
Pat Josey: ... someway that Ron...
Marcia Bandera: In answer to your question, um, if the Regents vote to rescind their action from November 20th, then there's probably a whole array of things that the Regents could make motions or do...including that.
Frank Daniels: I have a follow-up to that if I may. Ah, would you be willing to, ah, okay, if the Regents rescind, you can always go back and do the whole thing again, you know, take the same action a second time. Would you be willing to, to rescind in order to hear the people that, ah, no one made a motion to hear the last time?
Genie Goicoechea: Yes.
Frank Daniels: Wouldn't it be a good thing to say, ‘alright I want to hear what, ah, Mr. Cummings and Dr. Remington have to say? We'll rescind, we'll hear what they have to say,' and then if it doesn't change your mind, you could always take the same action.
Marcia Bandera: Hmmm, I don't know.
Frank Daniels: Would you be willing to do that?
Marcia Bandera: I don't know.
Tammy Staley: Marcia, as a member of this faculty, we would like to ask you to do that because I think Ron has a right to be heard. And, as you can see there are people in this room that question what he would say, and I think that that would be only fair. And I am asking you....
[Applause]
Marcia Bandera: And, I don't know if I will or not. We'll know that in December.
[Pause]
I will leave, um, if there's no more questions, with, um, Dr. Killpatrick, the two press releases that I haven't seen printed anywhere from the System. Ah, I don't know if anyone is interested in all of the motions that were made, ah, but I did write them out in my wording, which may not be 100 percent accurate, although I think it's close. And, I could certainly provide that as well. If anyone's interested in all of the motions that were made coming out of this session. Um, let's see....
Kathy Schwandt: Marica, I have one last question...
Marcia Bandera: Sure.
Kathy Schwandt: ...for clarification. Do you want me to stand up again?
Marcia Bandera: No, I just, sure, just so people could hear, I don't....
Kathy Schwandt: So, Dr. Remington was demoted for insubordination only, right?, related only to Bridget Jones?
Marcia Bandera: No.
Kathy Schwandt: So, insubordination related to other ....?
Marcia Bandera: Insubordination and practices regarding personnel actions or unfair practices.
Kathy Schwandt: Beyond just the one person.
Marcia Bandera: It's a very broad term.
Kathy Schwandt: Will we ever know? You know?
Marcia Bandera: I'd just as soon you know. I'd much rather have a conversation with everybody that sees everything that I do.
Kathy Schwandt: We'd like to, too. Seeing which Regents voted which way too, and that's sort of...baffling.
Marcia Bandera: Hmm-hmm. Yep.
Danny Gonzales: Marica, just one more point for clarification. So, the Board of Regents meeting, the, um, the way the motion or the way the agenda item is written, to rescind, Ron is not, I mean, the way it's written he's not going to be able to come in and introduce some kind of testimony or having any kind of dialogue with the Regents, right?
Marcia Bandera: No. The motion is non-debatable.
Danny Gonzales: So, it basically...I mean, if he were to want to engage the Regents or have some sort of dialogue with them that agenda item would have to be re-written...
Marcia Bandera: Correct.
Danny Gonzales: ...in a way to allow that?
Marcia Bandera: Sure. Open it up.
Garry Heberer: That's not really true because if they voted and rescinded then they could go back and re-address the personnel issues.
Marcia Bandera: And I had said that earlier.
Garry Heberer: Yeah.
Marcia Bandera: Dan was asking that if the motion to rescind, to rescind is not debatable. If they re-wrote that motion to something else, you could have the discussion and debate at that time.
Danny Gonzales: But, the Regents would have to do that three days prior to the Board, actual Board meeting, to be in compliance with the Open Meeting Law.
Marcia Bandera: At a minimum, and the agenda's already out.
Okay, other questions?
Adele Harding: Motion to rescind could just simply say... the motion is to rescind, that makes him president again and if nobody did anything after that it'd all be mute? Over?
Marcia Bandera: I see...
Adele Harding: You would have to have another motion to start the, the whole process...
Marcia Bandera: Right.
Adele Harding: ...again? So otherwise he would just stay as the president and everything'd be...
Marcia Bandera: Yeah. Unless someone would want to reinvestigate.
Unidentified: There's a question in the next room.
[Please note: The video did not record the questions from the overflow room. Transcript provided exclusively by audio cassette tape.]
Ursula Powers: Marica, this is Ursula, I'm over in the other room, in the overflow room.
Marcia Bandera: There actually were seats in here.
Ursula Powers: Yeah, the front desk sent the rest of us in here.
Marcia Bandera: Oh.
Ursula Powers: I wanted to ask you when you were discussing practices regarding personnel, that were considered in making a decision about Dr. Remington, I read in, of course, Las Vegas newspapers, that approximately 8 to 10 months ago, the Board of Regents was, they were involved in making a decision to settle with Mr. Wendell Williams' wife on a discrimination case and Ron Remington had recommended to the Board or Regents to settle that case for 49,000 dollars and basically had it over. I found it curious that this settlement agreement that was reached by the Board of Regents was made approximately at the same time that AB 511 was, bascially in front of one of the committees in the Assembly. Was this, um...I understand from the reading, only the papers in Las Vegas, that there was some criticism logged against the Board of Regents for making this decision to settle the suit with Mr. Williams for that amount instead of going with what your attorney had recommended, which was between 1,000 and 5,000 dollars. Were these practices considered in part of this investigation going clear back to that?
Marcia Bandera: Yeah. Actually the settlement was settled, um, before the Board of Regents. We didn't make that settlement. That was done administratively. Um, and that discussion was, you're correct, based upon not advise from legal council that that settlement was made. Um, whether or not that had any part of the investigation, I'm not at liberty to say, Ursula.
Ursula Powers: I can understand that, then I'll just make a statement. I just find it very interesting to see the names keep popping up in, in a two-year history of Mr. Remington being down there, in conflicts and things related to the Board of Regents. Thank you.
Frank Daniels: Ah, Regent Bandera, I have, ah, ah, sort of an oddball question here. Um, and it's me, so you know... The, ah, did, ah, President Remington undergo a particular probationary period at the beginning when he was first hired? How do his, how did that work when he was hired as president?
Marcia Bandera: Everybody has their first year as president, ah, and then they're given an evaluation, they're given a periodic evaluation, I believe, every three years, and an annual evaluation every year.
Frank Daniels: Well, he was past that initial phase.
Marcia Bandera: Yes.
Frank Daniels: Okay. Because then, that, then I'm asking wouldn't NRS 396.315 subsection 3 apply giving him the opportunity for review of the decision, ah, in any case involving termination or non-renewal?
Marcia Bandera: Um, he was not terminated. He was re-assigned from his presidential position to a faculty position. And, I know you're shaking your head, Frank, but that is what, that's what was done. And, if you look at the Code and at the contract, that's what's allowed for.
Frank Daniels: Well, ah, you know, it, this is a- the non-renewal, um, you know – in essence he's being assigned somewhere else, he no longer has that job. Correct?
Marcia Bandera: Ah, he is – he was no longer, based upon the decision of November 20th, he was re-assigned to faculty status with tenure.
Frank Daniels: True.
Marcia Bandera: If you have that question, I would suggest that you ask that of legal council.
Frank Daniels: Okay. Okay.
Marcia Bandera: I'm not saying that lightly, I'm saying, ‘send it...
Frank Daniels: No. I know, I know.
Marcia Bandera: ...to them.
Frank Daniels: I'm thinking it, because it, it would seem on reading that, you know, he's the adequate notice, he's had a hearing, that, ah, he ought to have the opportunity to review, but I may not be reading it right. So, that's why I said, “it's an odd-ball question,” because I have no idea what...
Marcia Bandera: Well I don't know if it's an odd-ball question, I'm just saying why don't you write it and send to Tom Ray.
Frank Daniels: Okay. Thank you.
Marcia Bandera: Thank you.
[Slight Applause]
Frank Daniels: Thank you for coming.
Marcia Bandera: Thank you.
Frank Daniels: It's a brave thing coming here.
Christina E. Mitchell, Transcriptionist
Support Staff to GBC Faculty Senate
Patricia Loper, Transcriptionist
Classified Council Co-Chair