Nevada greater ed officials quashed report vital of their management

When state legislators wanted concepts about the best ways to improve the state’s neighborhood colleges in 2014, the Nevada System of Higher Education worked with a Colorado-based think tank to scrutinize the four schools.

However when the National Center for College Management Systems produced a report extremely critical of the state’s higher education leadership, the research was quashed.

A series of emails between higher education system officials obtained by the Review-Journal through the state’s public records law reveals state authorities feared the report could be used by their critics and suppressed the workings with in fear that reforms would significantly lower their authority over the schools.

In an e-mail, Constance Brooks, the college system’s vice chancellor for government and neighborhood affairs, said to colleagues that the report shed a “extremely unfavorable light” on the state’s Board of Regents and asked if the audience for the report was the system’s “antagonists.”

“I say we simply take exactly what we like from the report and get rid of the rest,” she suggested.

So that’s what happened.

In an email to his staff, Chancellor Dan Klaich said he composed to the researchers in “candid” terms, informing them the report had actually given his workplace “heartburn.”

Their reword was better received.

“I like it. I believe it is believable,” Klaich later told his personnel. “You could accentuate things that would be more favorable for the NSHE, however I think that would call independence (of the researchers) into concern.”

In the end, not even that report was sent out to lawmakers who were thinking about ways to improve higher education in Nevada. Klaich told the Review-Journal it became an internal four-page file he shared just with the president of the College of Southern Nevada.

“I wanted a report that was reflective of exactly what I thought were the truths,” Klaich informed the paper.

Academic flexibility is an important concept in higher education– so much so that the American Association of University Professors formally censures institutions that aim to prevent professor from releasing legitimate research results that might be controversial or politically unpopular.

The concept is that society is much better served if independent researchers discover realities and let the chips fall as they might.

But Nevada’s college establishment has actually long been criticized as an agency run by individuals who do not have a background in college– a point raised in the very report that Klaich buried.

When told about Klaich’s effort to reduce findings he didn’t concur with, academics, members of the state Board of Regents and others said they just weren’t surprised.

They have actually seen it before.

In 2012, the Legislature selected SRI International, a prominent nonprofit consulting firm spun off by Stanford University, to advise an overhaul of the state’s complexed higher education funding formula.

SRI did the work, not knowing that Klaich had actually hired the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems– the same Colorado-based think tank he utilized in 2014– to duplicate the work. NCHEMS had contended for the Legislature’s research agreement however had lost out to SRI.

Klaich said he feared SRI would have to play a great deal of catch-up and he employed NCHEMS, which has a history with his agency, to give the Legislature additional info. The move drew the ire of lawmakers, who slammed him for abusing the process and producing a mess because the 2 research groups reached conclusions that clashed.

When outlined the effort to quash the community college report last year, Roland Stephen, an associate director for SRI International, simply laughed.

Stephen stated no one made it clear to SRI why Klaich had actually employed somebody to do its work. Considering that SRI consistently deals with complicated federal research written agreements, Stephen stated he felt his group was more than approximately the job of evaluating Nevada’s formula.

He said the Colorado think tank’s desire to rework its suggestions to match Klaich’s meaning of “credible” offers a clue.

“I can tell you why he (Klaich) would not want to work with us– since we don’t work like that,” Stephen stated. “That is inconsistent with the method SRI works with clients when doing independent assessments and evaluations.”

When gotten in touch with for comment in March, NCHEMS President Dennis Jones stated he felt the Review-Journal was “trying to find dirt where there is none.” When asked recently to elaborate, he declined remark, saying the newspaper was “doing a hatchet task, not a story.”


There was a lot at stake in in 2014’s interim study.

The quality of Nevada institution of higher learnings has been the topic of vibrant dispute in recent years, with company and political leaders openly saying that sub-par programs slow down the state’s financial development.

In his State of the State address in January, Gov. Brian Sandoval noted that “we know the jobs of the future will require two-thirds people to have post-high school qualifications.

“The New Nevada will certainly require more scientists, machinists, engineers, computer programmers, welders and other STEM employees to grow our brand-new industries,” Sandoval said, cautioning that enhancement in the system is an important requirement and that “our institution of higher learnings are the secret.”

Nevada’s 7 public colleges and universities have their own presidents however are managed by a chosen Board of Regents.

Klaich, an attorney, has actually had a hand in running that system for 25 years, initially as a regent from 1983 to 1997, with 2 terms as chairman of the board. In 2004 he went to work for the board, working as executive vice chancellor, vice chancellor for legal affairs and administration and chief counsel prior to his consultation as chancellor– the system’s primary executive officer– in 2009.

The NCHEMS report’s conclusions were clear: How Nevada manages college isn’t cutting it. It entertained extreme overhauls focuseded on improving the state’s community college system. Among them was a statement that questioned the capability of Klaich’s agency to achieve any of its improvement objectives.

The Nevada System of College “faces a significant difficulty of addressing policy concerns across all objectives from the universities to the neighborhood colleges,” the scientists composed.

That was viewed as a bit harsh.

“The report appears to describe a disaster, which we are not. If we had actually shared it with others outside of our group it might (would) be used to bludgeon us,” wrote Frank Woodbeck, executive director of the College Collaborative with the Nevada System of College, in an e-mail to Klaich.

Woodbeck went on to question if the researchers felt Nevada’s higher education system was healthy and only in need of small modification.

Woodbeck, previously director of the Nevada Department of Employment, Training & & Rehabilitation, had actually only been on the task for a bit more than a month when the report came his method. His position had actually been produced as an assurance that the system was doing enough on behalf of neighborhood colleges, but the scientists noted that in other states such positions go to people with community college management experience. That experience doesn’t exist in Nevada’s system, scientists stated.

“Absolutely concur,” Klaich said in an email to the scientists. “Frank is our 1st step towards that but does not have the type of experience you mention right here.”

Woodbeck recently said it was essential for him to weigh in on the draft in a “forthright manner” on mistakes in the report, and stated he based his evaluation on his experience with the community colleges and their workforce development functions throughout his previous state task.

In late April, Klaich said he wasn’t out to whitewash the report, as shown by his arrangement on criticism of some issues.

“I didn’t want them to just issue a report that states everything is 76 and warm,” Klaich stated.

But Klaich said researchers didn’t discover what he anticipated, and he feared they hadn’t had enough time to reach the conclusions they did.

In the end, not even the toned-down version went to lawmakers who were searching for ways to enhance the system.

Last June the interim committee determined Klaich’s company need to try to enhance the neighborhood colleges within the current system.


Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske, a previous state senator who served on the interim committee, said she would be very dissatisfied to hear that the higher education system would flinch at criticism however kept in mind that as a lawmaker for 18 years she found the system’s safeguarded nature a continuous problem.

“For many years we have actually been attempting to enter and clarify things, go in and try to make modifications, however it is extremely challenging to make modifications in that system since in our statute they don’t have to reply to us,” Cegavske stated. “All we have to do is give them cash.”

Regent Trevor Hayes, who was elected last November, called the agency’s reaction baffling and unsafe.

After examining the draft report and emails about it, Hayes said he doesn’t see how letting individuals check out the initial version would have caused any harm.

“It appeared like there were a great deal of comments in the e-mails from people who felt insulted from (the expert’s) look at our system, but look– we’re not running the California university system here. There’s space for enhancement,” Hayes said.

“Why cannot we take criticism and aim to enhance? I have no idea why we’re so thin-skinned.”

Researchers at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas’ Lincy Institute, a think tank that pushed for legislators to put the neighborhood colleges under a different regulating structure, stated they also dealt with opposition for recommending modification.

David Damore, a UNLV associate teacher of government who dealt with the Lincy research study, stated Klaich went to Don Snyder, who was then acting UNLV president, and tried to get him to stop the scientist’s work.

Klaich stated he never tried to shut down Lincy’s work, nevertheless, and Snyder stated he didn’t keep in mind any dustup.

“I have an excellent ability to turn the page on those type of concerns pretty quickly,” Snyder stated.

No matter the reaction, Damore said, it would have been handy for legislators to have understood that Klaich’s consultants raised issues just like Lincy’s findings.

Hayes said the college system requires an honest look at its issues. Otherwise, it’s difficult to obtain required support from lawmakers and magnate.

“We keep informing everyone things are fine, and it’s difficult to obtain aid,” Hayes stated.

Yet in asking the scientists to tone down their criticism of his company, Klaich drew no punches in saying what he was afraid would take place if business leaders critical of Nevada’s higher education system ever saw it.

“Wow, this is a truly condemning summary,” Klaich composed on a copy of the report he returned to the NCHEMS researchers. “If I were the LV Metro Chamber I would be licking my chops and sending you a thank-you note.”

A former chamber worker who worked carefully on this concern agreed with Klaich’s assessment of the reaction. The initial report, he stated, echoed issues he was raising to the company.

“It’s frightening– there it is, in black and white,” stated the former chamber employee, who asked to stay anonymous because of sensitivities in his existing task. “These people don’t want to take (the issues) into consideration.”

Regent Mark Doubrava stated the system’s handling of the NCHEMS report is upsetting but no surprise. At his very first regents fulfilling in 2011, he remembered, a various specialist discussed during a presentation that a research study conclusion was thrown out at the direction of the Nevada System of College.

Even if scientists provide opinions, their work should not be discarded, Doubrava said.

“Let’s hear that viewpoint,” Doubrava stated. “We paid for it!”

Doubrava stated he wishes to know how many consultants the system has and who gets to see report drafts.

Using outdoors specialists gives the impression of an objective opinion, however that neutrality is in risk if the system determines the findings, he said.

And if a firm works primarily with the same expert, the specialist may put keeping the company delighted above delivering objective research, Doubrava said.

Emails reveal Objectives McGuinness, a senior relate to NCHEMS, did inform Klaich the think tank might make the whole draft “disappear, if required” and would deal with him “to do whatever is needed.”

Everyone understands Nevada needs to start doing something different to improve education, however actual change is unusual, Doubrava stated.

“Who takes advantage of the status quo?” Doubrava asked. “We shouldn’t be scared of information.”

Contact Bethany Barnes at [email protected]!.?.! or 702-477-3861. Discover her on Twitter: @betsbarnes

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *