MEMORANDUM

To: Joe Reynolds, Chief General Counsel

NSHE

Fr: Melody Rose, Chancellor

NSHE

Date: October 4, 2021

Re: Hostile Work Environment Complaint

Through this memorandum I am providing evidence of a hostile work environment on the basis of
my sex: persistent hostility, abuse of power, consistent undermining, and multiple violations of
Board of Regents (BOR) Handbook and policy, as well as my own contract. Combined, these abuses
interfere with my obligation to discharge my responsibilities as articulated in the Bylaws, policies,
and my contract. I respectfully request immediate relief from these violations and will cooperate
fully with any investigation into these allegations you deem appropriate.

For context, I was hired September 1, 2020 at a lower salary than my two new subordinates
(Presidents Sandoval and Whitfield), in spite of having more experience than either of them in
higher education executive-level service. I would say that in the case of President Sandoval, whom I
respect, I have vastly more experience in this industry, and yet I am paid less. I believe Dr. Whitfield,
who is a superb leader, is paid more than Dr. Marta Meana, who preceded him as Interim President
of UNLV. It is vital for me to express that I do not wish to disparage either of my male colleagues;
neither is responsible for this pay inequity, nor do I wish to suggest they are undeserving. I only
question the rationale for my lower compensation package.

The fact of my inequitable compensation is concerning on its face. But is exists within the context
both of my national reputation as an award-winning feminist scholar and respected change agent,
as well as NSHE’s widespread regional reputation as an institution hostile to women. I am a
decorated political scientist, with awards for my scholarship in the arenas of American women’s
political leadership and social policy. It was widely understood when I was hired that I also founded
Portland State University’s Center for Women’s Leadership and am deeply committed to and vocal
about the advancement of all women at all levels. I also come from liberal states, and have been
vocal throughout my career, including in Nevada, about my commitment to equity. All of these
characteristics were easily documented and well-known during my candidacy for the chancellor
position, and yet I feel they are currently being held against me.

Upon my arrival I immediately heard stories about NSHE’s persistent disregard for female
employees. System Administration colleagues, presidents, reporters, and community members
warned me about a pervasive sexist culture and wanted both to alert me to this “Old Boys Club”
environment and to ask for my assistance is changing it. Notably, I am the first permanent female

1
chancellor in 20 years, and possibly the only one hired through a professional, national search
process.

Sadly, it didn’t take long for me to witness some of this culture first-hand. In the fall of 2020, then-
Regent Levine sparred publicly with the Board’s Chief of Staff Dean Gould, and he made overtly
condescending and sexist remarks toward her. Although I am aware that the Board of Regents
(BOR) undertook an investigation of those events, the Board never publicly condemned Mr. Gould’s
inappropriate, disrespectful remarks toward a female regent, though many observers in the public
did, including the governor.

Within this context, I believe the harassing treatment I describe below is based upon my sex, as well
as the personal political persuasions of our Board officers, despite the fact that the elected office of
Regent is non-partisan. I will describe, to the best of my ability and memory, my experiences of the
past several months, which I believe rise to the level of a hostile work environment, and which I
firmly believe any reasonable person would see as prima facie discrimination based upon my sex.

I believe that the new Board of Regent officers, Chairwoman McAdoo and Vice Chairman Carter, ran
for their leadership positions deliberately to marginalize me and to limit my effectiveness, and that
their ultimate intention is my dismissal. It saddens me to provide you with this documentation of
the abusive treatment I have experienced since late June 2021, but I feel I have no other recourse.
Prior to them assuming leadership roles, I worked in a supportive environment, with healthy,
trusted, and productive relationships with my Board officers. The abuse I have experienced since
the leadership turnover has been persistent and unrelenting and is affecting both my own ability to
perform but that of Cabinet members, as well. I feel that I have no other choice but to protect the
System and its loyal staff. If I am silent the abuse will undoubtedly continue, making us less
effective in servicing our mission, students, staff and faculty, and unable to steward properly the
public’s investment in higher education. Furthermore, I am concerned that if I do not speak out,
members of my own Cabinet may feel I have allowed the abuse: to be silent is to be complicit.

Some Context as to How I Think We Got Here:

In my first few months on the job, I forged a healthy and happy working relationship with Chairman
Doubrava and Vice Chairwoman Del Carlo (who had chaired my search). Then-Chairman Doubrava
provided helpful guidance regarding regent expectations for my personal and public
communications. He instructed me to be sure to connect individually with regents, especially
regarding quarterly Board meetings; I was grateful to have this instruction because that level of
interaction had never been expected of me in prior CEO roles. Chairman Doubrava was
professional and respectful in conveying this direction and indicated that a few regents had
complained to him, including then-Regent McAdoo. I immediately pivoted, and during my first ten
months on the job, I had 150 individual, personal regent meetings. Below are the meetings (not
including impromptu phone calls) I have had with Regent (now Chair) McAdoo from my start date of
September 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021:

9/30/20: Bluejeans
11/17/20: Call

2
1/6/21: Bluejeans
2/4/21: Bluejeans
3/2/21: Bluejeans
3/7/21: Bluejeans w/ Regents Carvalho & McAdoo
3/15/21: Hosted Regent McAdoo and Vice Chair Del Carlo at my home for dinner
3/19/21: Bluejeans
6/23/21: Bluejeans
7/2/21: Weekly Officers Meeting
7/9/21: Weekly Officers Meeting
7/16/21: Weekly Officers Meeting
7/23/21: Weekly Officers Meeting Plus Cabinet member #2 and Chief General Counsel
7/26/21: Weekly Officers Meeting Plus Cabinet member #2 and Chief General Counsel
7/30/21: Weekly Officers Meeting Plus Cabinet member #2 and Chief General Counsel
8/6/21: Weekly Officers Meeting Plus Cabinet member #2 and Chief General Counsel
8/13/21: Weekly Officers Meeting Plus Cabinet member #2 and Chief General Counsel
Sunday, Aug 15, 2021: Emergency Cabinet w/ Officers
8/20/21: Weekly Officers Meeting Plus Cabinet member #2
8/27/21: Weekly Officers Meeting
9/2/21: Weekly Officers Meeting
9/17/21: Weekly Officers Meeting
9/27: Weekly Officers Meeting

In addition, Chairman Doubrava gave me helpful guidance last fall regarding NSHE’s public
communications. Though the Board’s Handbook (Bylaws) and my contract make my authority clear
in public communications, he indicated some regent sensitivities regarding press releases in
particular. Notably, they expect a regent quote to precede any quote from the chancellor, to
highlight regent accomplishments, and to be sure my voice aligns with BOR policy and direction. I
immediately directed staff to comport with this expectation. From January 2021 – August 2021,
Regent (and later Chair) McAdoo had numerous complaints about the way my office was handling
public communications, but her concerns went well beyond the direction Chairman Doubrava had
given me. It is important to note that during that same time frame, I had two major vacancies in
the communications team (including the Cabinet member responsible for communications) and we
were going through the most intense legislative session in memory, not to mention a global public
health crisis. Literally half, or two of the four positions in that Department, were vacant: leaving us
little capacity. As a result, my ability to satisfy these demands was hindered until I was able to hire
the new Vice Chancellor for Public Affairs and Advancement in August 2021. If there were
oversights, they were never a result of some intention to disrespect or undermine the regents; we
were simply under-resourced, and I was getting communications direction that was different from
what my predecessor had been given. I discussed all of this with our Public Information Officer
(PIO), and he did his best within this context to correct issues. I will share, however, that he
consistently reported to me that he was issuing statements, memos and press releases during my
tenure in the exact same manner he had under my predecessor, former Chancellor Thom Reilly,
leading me to wonder why I would be subject to a different set of standards.

3
This context is relevant because I sensed virtually from the time of my arrival that Regent McAdoo
did not trust me. I attempted to understand her concerns and to meet her needs, but the situation
became uncomfortable by January 2021 and by then I was hearing from other regents that she did
not trust me, that she thought I secretly supported Question 1,1 and that she felt I did not support
the regents generally. That I heard this from other regents (not her) was deeply concerning, and so
I asked her directly to speak with me about it. It was at one of the early 2021 Bluejeans meetings
that I asked her what was going on and how I could correct the problem. She shared directly she
did not trust me but initially could not point to anything specific I had done or not done to create
the problem. I pressed and only then did she say that president-elect Whitfield had written to her
before his start date at NSHE but that I had failed to do so (though we had a brief LinkedIn
exchange). Though this hardly seems a reason for mistrust, I explained that other regents
(Doubrava, Geddes, Paige, and Trachok) had reached out over the summer preceding my start date
and I had multiple meetings with them. I would have been glad to have met with her during my
transition, but I had no indication she wanted or expected that level of communication prior to my
start date.

This conversation seemed to clear the air2 until May 6, 2021, when my office issued a press release
regarding our plans to craft a vaccination policy in case the vaccines became required. My intention
for that release was to make clear that NSHE was being proactive and wanted to craft
implementation plans in case the FDA/CDC, State of Nevada, and BOR moved in this direction. It
was also necessary for me to speak about our planning process because media and faculty were
beginning to accuse NSHE of inaction. However, due to the staffing gaps described above, as well
as the fact that we were now during chaotic end-of-legislative session activities, continuous
pandemic-related crisis, and the beginning of graduation season, I did not properly vet that press
release. It went out with stronger language than I intended, and I admit I got in front of the BOR,
though that was not my intention. The reaction from regents was mixed. Some were very
supportive, and others, furious. I explained to each the situation, apologized, took responsibility,
and explained my intention to hire a Vice Chancellor to set protocols in place to prevent similar
missteps in the future.3 All but Regents McAdoo and Brooks have been satisfied with that.4

I believe this is when Regent McAdoo decided to run for chair of the BOR. Although Vice Chair Del
Carlo was in the line of succession and planning to run for chair, and Regent Carvalho was planning

1
For the record, I voted *against* Q1. Of course professionally it was and remains my duty to protect the regents and
to uphold their official positions, which I have faithfully done since my arrival. However, I do not believe an elected
official, even one who supervises my work, has the right to impose her partisan or political views on an employee’s
personal voting choices.
2
I even received a positive email from Regent McAdoo around the start of the legislative session about our handling of
NSHE’s priorities and our relationship development in the Capitol.
3
The new Vice Chancellor for Public Affairs and Advancement began her job on July 29, 2021. She met shortly
thereafter at my direction with the officers to map out communications protocols and to align expectations. She has
produced the only Communications Plan and Decision Tree anyone can remember at NSHE. It will receive final review
by Cabinet on Monday, Sept. 27th and will then be shared with the BOR. I believe our performance in this arena is far
superior to that of my predecessor, again leading me to question why I would be challenged on this front.
4
Regent Brooks called me directly when the press release was issued, and literally yelled at me for 20 minutes, most
notably demanding, “Who in the hell do you think you are?” He later requested a BOR conversation about hiring its
own PIO during the New Business section of the BOR meeting on September 10th, 2021.

4
to seek the vice chair, the winds shifted at this point. Regent Del Carlo told me that Regent Carter
informed her that he believed she and Chairman Doubrava did not “stand up” enough to me. I
heard that narrative from others, as well. It felt at the time that the new officers ran on a platform
to strip my authority, though their issues with my performance have remained elusive and only
expressed to me second-hand. That has been my experience ever since. The treatment I receive
feels retaliatory and punitive in every interaction – whether for the May 6 press release or
something else I cannot say, but the environment shifted very abruptly and dramatically from a
supportive, collaborative team effort with Chairman Doubrava and Vice Chair Del Carlo (which is the
relationship I am accustomed to, having served 10 chairs in my career) to persistent innuendo,
hostility, undermining, and derision. I literally never hear a positive word about my performance
from the new officers.

Between the Board’s selection of the new officers at the June quarterly BOR meeting (June 10 & 11)
and their installation on July 1st, 2021, I determined that though they might have sought their
offices out of some sort of distrust of me or performance concern, I would approach the situation
by being a consummate professional and playing by the book, which is always my way. I was
optimistic that once they worked closely with me, as the previous officers had, they would find me
to be open & transparent, respectful, and capable. I quickly learned this approach would not
suffice.

The troubles with the officers began even before they were officially installed with their handling of
UNR’s acquisition of Sierra Nevada University (SNU).5 What I experienced there, along with you,
and ultimately the whole Cabinet, was a shocking series of secret decisions and abuses of power
that ultimately undermined my authority and yours with the UNR leadership and the Board as a
whole. The result was regrettable, unnecessary friction between our office and the UNR leadership
team and a hurried and incomplete due diligence process which would undermine the BOR’s role as
fiduciary. Below is my recollection of those events.

Monday, June 7th: President Sandoval told me about the possibility of UNR being “gifted” SNU. I
expressed both my genuine support for this move (having watched SNU struggle for two decades
and knowing the potential it brings for UNR) as well as my counsel about involving regents and my
Cabinet in a timely fashion to support UNR and to facilitate the complex transaction smoothly.

Wednesday, June 23: I requested a meeting on this day with Chair-Elect McAdoo to proactively
discuss how we would work together and to ask about her communications expectations during her
year as chair. I was looking forward to this meeting because I wanted to start off on the right foot. I
inquired about July 23rd, 2021, a date held for a special Board meeting; I was curious whether she
would convene that meeting at all, and if so, which topics she might see coming. It is in the
Handbook that I have a role in understanding, vetting, and moving agenda items forward in
collaboration with the chair. Her response was shocking.

5
The irony of being left out of these asset acquisitions conversations is that I am a national expert in this subject. I have
a book coming out next month on this very topic. Literally no one else in the state has the experience I bring, and
rather than leverage that experience to ensure a smooth transition and proper Board oversight, I was completely cut
out of all discussions.

5
She first told me that NSC had an urgent need to get a traffic issue resolved prior to the start of fall
term, and that she had given approval for that item to be on the July agenda. I had never heard of
that issue, and I would later learn that neither had my Cabinet. The campus had gone directly to
the chair-elect for this item, which occasionally happens; however, it is the chair’s job to reroute
such requests through System Administration (SA) for analysis, vetting, and our staff
recommendation. Though there was nothing substantively wrong with the request, procedurally it
caught me off guard.

More concerning was that she alluded to a “major” campus agenda item (campus not identified) for
the special Board meeting in July but refused to share what it was. I pressed her on this by
explaining my job is to process agenda items through SA to perform due diligence for the Board,
and she was adamant that “she had been instructed” not to share the agenda item with me or my
Cabinet, and that she would not break that commitment. She would not tell me who had so
instructed her, but I explained that her decision would literally prevent me from doing my job. She
was immovable and visibly and audibly irritated with my persistence.

This interaction worried me also because she was not the chair at the time of this conversation.
Mark Doubrava was still the chair, and I was concerned that he too might have been in the dark on
the mystery agenda item, which would be highly unusual and improper.

June 24: I called Chairman Doubrava to get his advice. He had no idea what the item might be, and
I speculated whether it could be the SNU/UNR deal. He had heard nothing about that emerging
plan, and so I shared what little I knew. He agreed that the lack of protocol was very odd and
advised me to have further dialogue with Chair-Elect McAdoo.

At some point I also called Vice Chair Del Carlo, who had heard rumors about this possible
acquisition (SNU is in her district and less than a mile from her home) but had not been officially
informed by anyone that the item would be moving forward to a Board of Regents (BOR) agenda.

June 30th: I had my first official meeting with both Board officers. I raised the UNR/SNU issue and
Chairwoman McAdoo was defensive and adamant about her withholding information from me.
Vice Chairman Carter confessed he knew about the matter but would say no more. I expressed my
desire to: 1. Provide typical SA due diligence so that regents may make a fully informed decision,
as fiduciaries, and 2. Scrutinize whether the deal as proposed would preserve their authority over
the new campus. They both skirted the issues, shared no information, and the meeting ended on a
tense note.

During that week I got a call from Mike Wixom, who is a former Chair of the BOR and on retainer
with NSHE for real estate law matters. He shared with me that the officers-elect had attempted to
retain his services without my knowledge or yours (only you as Chief General Council have that
right, and Mr. Wixom rebuffed their efforts) to review the emerging agreement with SNU. He
shared that Rick Trachok, former regent and chair of BOR, was representing SNU and that Mr.
Trachok had advised Regents McAdoo and Carter to seek his counsel but directed them not to share
any information with you or me. Mr. Wixom seemed embarrassed by this process and shared that

6
this protocol was concerning and that in his view, also improper, reckless, and unprecedented. He
further shared that he viewed Mr. Trachok’s involvement as a potential conflict of interest and that
he might be violating a cooling off policy for elected officials.

Mike Wixom, you and I began speaking to piece together what was going on. Rick Trachok called
you and Mr. Wixom each directly and told you both explicitly that the officers had been withholding
information intentionally from you and from me so that we wouldn’t “slow things down.” Although
Mr. Trachok never contacted me, a narrative set in that you and I were obstructionist. All we
wanted to do is be appropriately informed, follow protocol, and apply due diligence to serve our
regents in their role as fiduciary.

I sent several updates via email to the officers during this timeframe. Neither of them responded.

I heard from Chairwoman McAdoo who said the president wanted to hold tours for regents at SNU.
I told her that while that was a nice idea, you needed to review for Open Meeting Law (OML)
concerns and she seemed dismissive and acted like we were just trying to be a barrier again.

July 7th: I held a special Cabinet meeting to share information with our team and to create a plan to
assist UNR. Cabinet members were furious for being undermined by the officers, and anxious that
they were now expected to facilitate this transaction with so little time for proper consideration.
Some expressed worry about moving something half-baked to the regents that could result in poor
decision-making, and what that could do to their professional reputations.

Later this day, UNR released an announcement (a surprise to me, all presidents, Cabinet) about the
gift, explicitly violating Regents’ gift policy and running afoul of protocols around communications
that I routinely get accused of.

Friday, July 9th: My Cabinet met with President Sandoval’s team. We reiterated our commitment to
supporting their efforts and to conducting due diligence. We all agreed to next steps, including that
I would ask Chairwoman McAdoo for an extension on submission of the agreement in order to have
more time for proper vetting.

Later this same day, I met with Board officers. Chairwoman McAdoo was agitated from the outset.
She told me she “hears” I was trying to be a barrier and instructed me not to “try to substitute my
opinion for that of regents.” I explained calmly that I don’t know where she could possibly have
heard that and asked for evidence of my obstruction. She had none. I reiterated my principles: to
serve the regents through due diligence to inform their decision-making, to protect and observe all
Board protocols, and to protect their authority in this deal. She lectured again on my need to
respect Board deadlines, and the extra work it causes Interim Board Chief of Staff Keri Nikolajewski
when SA is late with materials, to which I explain SA’s role in vetting materials and providing analysis
and opinion on them, and that she and UNR did not follow protocol in getting us materials in such a
way that our due diligence would be sound. She seemed far more concerned with Ms.
Nikolajewski’s ability to process and post the materials in a hurry than with our responsibility for
vetting the substance and implications of the agreement. Chairwoman McAdoo also indicated that

7
you had checked in with AG’s office and the tours were okay – insinuating, again, that you were
making up problems that don’t exist, rather than seeing your efforts as fidelity to regents.

Later that evening, Chairwoman McAdoo emailed an extension for submission of Board materials
from Monday, July 12 to Wednesday, July 14 (Not July 16, which I had requested).

I was being undermined by my own Board chair, whom I believe was taking direction from Mr.
Trachok, a former regent with strong loyalty to UNR, and a potential ethical problem in
representing SNU. He had actively and openly supported Question 1 and therefore has a personal
political interest in undermining the System. I also know (because it was in the papers and the
search consultant for my position told me) that he fiercely supported another candidate for my
position, so he quite possibly has motive to undermine my personal success and reputation as well.
Due to this public statement of support for a specific, alternative chancellor candidate, Mr. Trachok
was not permitted to chair the chancellor’s search, and Regent Del Carlo was selected, instead.

All of this was making it exceedingly difficult to perform our core job functions, outlined in the
Handbook and my contract, to provide analysis and recommendations to the Board as an essential
component of their fiduciary responsibilities, putting the whole Board at risk.

Monday, July 12: I texted Chairwoman McAdoo at 12:25, telling her I was free if she would like to
connect and share information about where we are on this. She never responded.

July 23rd: BOR approved UNR moving forward.

In the UNR/SNU process I had an early window into the new chair’s modus operandi: to give the
campus permission to circumvent protocols and best practices which ultimately had the impact of
undermining my rightful role and yours. This kind of behavior violates Board policy as well as my
contract, and most importantly, results in the Board receiving rushed and possibly less-than-optimal
due diligence. It also communicates to the campus that the chairwoman did not respect me or our
office. Board decisions made under these conditions will ultimately damage mission and potentially
could carry long-term reputational risk for the soundness of decision-making and policy
development.

I wish to be very clear that I do not blame President Sandoval for any of the officers’ actions. I
respect and support him very much. As a new president without a higher education background, I
can imagine he felt on firm footing in this process, taking the direction of his senior staff, as well as
current (McAdoo) and a former (Trachok) BOR chairs. Sadly, I do not think he received sound
advice, but that is in no way his fault.

Issues with the Officers Beyond SNU That Demonstrate Similar Behavior:

Friday, July 12th: In a weekly officers meeting, I recommended keeping Regent Byron Brooks’
request for pro-Israel statement off the special July Board meeting agenda. I viewed his proposal as
too narrowly-tailored, potentially inflammatory, and partisan, given the current national dialogue
about the Israeli/Palestine conflict. Instead, I suggested folding Board support for the Jewish

8
community and a position of anti-Semitism (which would be entirely proper) into the Board’s
broader effort for an equity statement. She then said I had “created the problem with Regent
Brooks” in the first place, by issuing my Juneteenth statement. She said I have no authority to
speak for “NSHE, when NSHE includes the regents and you haven’t consulted them about your
statement.” Chairwoman McAdoo’s comment was hostile, inappropriate and demeaning. It was
also incorrect. My contract and Board policy state that I do in fact speak for NSHE, and that when I
am aligned with mission, values, and precedent, that is my job and in fact my duty. In other words, I
am not only permitted, but obligated, to do so. Certainly, in issuing a supportive statement on
Juneteenth I am supporting the mission and values of NSHE. As a majority/minority higher
education System, with a Board goal to eliminate the achievement gap, it would be appropriate to
support Juneteenth. To suggest I don’t have that authority or that the message was somehow
inappropriate felt bizarre, undermining, and disorienting. It felt like the officers are looking for me
to make mistakes, and specifically wanting to silence my external communications, which are all
designed to place NSHE in the best possible light, and to advance our mission.

Officers Meeting 7/26/2021, including Cabinet member #3 and you:

We presented the COVID Task Force’s recommendation of July 23rd for required masks for all on
every NSHE campus and asked the officers to take Board action to protect our campus
communities. A week prior President #3 had asked me if they could create a campus-level mask
mandate. I had called Chairwoman McAdoo to consult with her, and we agreed such a decision
needed Board input and that it should be System-wide. But in this meeting, Chairwoman McAdoo
reversed her position, and told us that the Board “has no place deciding masks or anything else
about COVID – it is the governor’s responsibility,” she said. Vice Chairman Carter said that without
widespread faculty & student input, regents couldn’t vote for it (alluding to the fact that some of
them are up for reelection in 2022 or seeking higher office). I asserted that there is a distinction in
shared governance between times when the faculty have authority to decide things (predominantly
around the curriculum) and when it is critical to have their input and perspective (non-curricular
matters). Deciding emergency health policy during a pandemic is the latter, a management right if
you will.

I left this meeting with no direction and very confused about the Chair’s position: Did she want the
BOR to be involved in COVID policy? Should I delegate to campuses? How do I provide meaningful
and timely advice to the campuses? This meeting was the beginning of what would become erratic,
hostile, and secretive decision-making related to COVID policy, which again creates risk for the
entire Board, and quite possibly sacrifices the health and well-being of our campus communities
due to the chaos and delay it caused.

Next, see email from Vice Chairman Carter on 7/28:

“I did not want to correct and coach you in front of staff at our meeting on Monday. I am very
troubled by your application of shared governance and mismatch with the expectations at NSHE. I
believe with every item that comes through NSHE there has always been the opportunity for
constituent groups to express their thoughts about agenda items. I have noticed during your time
that you selectively tell the Regents when shared governance is applicable or not. When it is just the

9
three of us on the call on Friday I would like to give you the opportunity to further explain your
viewpoint and the expectation going forward. “

This email was shocking to me. It felt like an assault on my professional integrity and identity. It is
dismissive, disrespectful of my 30 years’ experience in shared governance, and seemed like an
attempt to scold me through over an email that is discoverable and could be very embarrassing to
me. I was sick to my stomach, couldn’t focus. I perseverated on it, waking up worried multiple
times that night afraid for my job.

During this week I also learned of two additional actions by the officers that exceeded their
authority and disrespected in one case the General Counsel at Nevada State College (NSC), Berna
Ford, and in another, a fellow regent, Carol Del Carlo. Both of these incidents felt like power grabs,
that demonstrate micro-managing and inappropriately exclusionary behaviors that are also
defamatory, offensive and undermine my rightful role.

On Monday, July 26th, Vice Chairman Carter joined me for lunch in person. I was still trying to forge
a productive working relationship, and for the most part, our conversation was collegial. But then
he showed me an electronic invitation to a WNC fundraising event hosted by Regent Del Carlo at
her home. He asserted he felt there was an ethics violation in her hosting the event and was quite
adamant the matter needed to be addressed. I told him an accusation of an ethics violation by a
fellow regent is a serious allegation, and suggested he reach out to Regent Del Carlo to learn more.
He did not. Instead, he contacted you and ultimately required that the Legal Department conduct
an ethics review. Deputy General Counsel Nevarez-Goodson produced a finding of no ethical
violation, but the behind-the-scenes work to undermine a fellow regent through suspicion and
innuendo was ugly. Chairwoman McAdoo also raised these allegations to President Solis, and a
generous offer to assist the campus was sullied through this lack of respect and professionalism.
Your team also wasted precious time (in the midst of COVID policy development) chasing after a
baseless claim and this secretive effort to undermine another regent sowed further seeds of rancor
within the Board.

I also learned this week that Berna Ford, the General Counsel (GC) for NSC, and a prominent
member of Nevada’s African American community, had coordinated a welcoming reception for
incoming President Pollard, the first Black woman president ever appointed within NSHE. Both
officers voiced outrage, suggesting the effort was racist. “How would it look if the white community
held a reception for a white president?!” Chairwoman McAdoo insisted. Unbeknownst to me, both
officers circumvented me, you, and Acting President Shields, calling GC Ford directly and
confronting her aggressively about the event. This effort was embarrassing: Not only was the
accusation of exclusion and impropriety abusive, tone-deaf and baseless, but it was yet another
effort to undermine my authority on the campuses and by taking matters into their own hands and
confronting staff three levels down without my knowledge.

Officers Meeting 7/30/2021:

The officers raised the Black community’s event for Dr. Pollard in the weekly meeting. Both you and
Cabinet member #2 witnessed their outrage at feeling “excluded,” which is ironic given that they

10
(and all regents) were invited to the event. They seemed particularly shocked that you and I
refused to admonish GC Ford. When Chairwoman McAdoo asked me directly what she should do
about the situation, I told her she should attend the event, and that the community and Dr. Pollard
would be welcoming and appreciative of her participation. In the end she did attend, and I believe
she was grateful she had, though she has never spoken of it to me since. The whole episode felt
like a witch hunt: a desperate effort to find wrong-doing where there was none (as in the case of
Regent Del Carlo’s fundraiser for WNC), further over-reach, and needless destruction of
relationships.

Though you and Cabinet member #2 were in the meeting, Vice Chairman Carter waited until you
both signed off to switch gears, claiming that I said in our 7/23 meeting that, “Shared governance
only applies to academics.” And that this view was anathema to NSHE values, and that if I was
saying similar things elsewhere, I would be misrepresenting the BOR and Chancellor’s office, and
would not reflect well on either. He said I needed to be “redirected.”

I was so taken aback by the aggressiveness of this accusation (not to mention the substance), that I
retreated to my normal posture: calm, respectful. I said I apologized if I was cryptic in my
statement (which I do not believe was as he stated, and I have Cabinet member #2 and you as
witnesses) and explained that I have faithfully upheld SG for 30 years (mostly on the faculty side),
take pride and pleasure in engaging faculty and students in their *consultative* role in shared
governance, but that when it comes to *decision-making* relative to areas outside curricula, and in
particular with emergency public health and safety, the responsibility lies squarely with the
fiduciary. I shared that I have a demonstrated, 30-year track record (including in Nevada) of
listening to stakeholders actively, and protecting their cherished role in advising the BOR, and that
their interpretation of my statement did not align with my demonstrated practice of SG, here or
elsewhere. I pointed out all the ways that I happily participate in shared governance, including my
recent addition of Chair of Chairs Pason to the Covid Task Force, by routine meetings with chairs
and student body presidents, etc. Hearing from affected parties would allow the governing body to
make better decisions, but those decisions cannot be yielded to faculty or students (outside of the
content and delivery of curricula).

Vice Chairman Carter said, “it’s up to Chairwoman McAdoo if she wants to take this further,” which
I heard as a threat of reprimand, something I have never heard in my entire career. I should be able
to explicate the various roles of stakeholders in a private meeting with Board leaders without
accusations of my intentions or recrimination. This exchange was horrifying to me. Given my
sterling record in higher education as an expert, it made me physically ill to be accused of violating
such a core value as shared governance. For the rest of the evening and next few days, I was sick to
my stomach, couldn’t eat or sleep, and felt scared for my job. I was in Lake Tahoe with my husband
and our time together was ruined. Meetings with the officers should be a safe space to share ideas
and deal with thorny issues as trusted colleagues, but I have felt nothing but accusation and
mistrust since these two took leadership roles. Cabinet member #2 and you heard my statements
on shared governance, and you in fact reinforced them in the context of BOR responsibility to
decisions related to masks, vaccines, etc.

11
I should note that the officers never took action on a mask requirement for our campuses, even as
the fall semester was quickly approaching and students and faculty were expressing anxiety about
the Delta variant and their safety on campus. The officers ignored my recommendation, and never
responded to my email request for action or direction. Several days later, the governor issued his
statewide mask mandate. Chairwoman McAdoo called me, telling me that she had been praying on
the issue and that through the governor’s decision, God had answered her prayers. The
inconsistency is her direction caused confusion and delay in the midst of a crisis, when the health
and well-being of our entire community was hanging in the balance.

The erratic direction from Chairwoman McAdoo over COVID policy accelerated in early August, and
I am admittedly a little fuzzy on the timeline because the flurry of calls, meeting, and emails were so
numerous, though you may have a better record. Here is what I recall:

August 2nd: You issued the legal opinion regarding Board of Health (BOH) authority over student
vaccines.

August 3rd: I received a call from the governor’s Chief of Staff asking to meet with me, you and
Cabinet member #2 to discuss BOH interest in a mandatory student vaccine. We convened that
evening and provided input.

August 3: I received a call from Cabinet member #5, reporting that Chairwoman McAdoo had called
them that day:

1. Still upset about the reception for President Pollard, and totally inappropriate in her
defensiveness that she is not racist “because has black friends who have been to her
house.”
2. Apparently also upset that she was being asked to respond to press inquiries “on their
schedule.” Cabinet member #5 patiently explained media deadlines and crisis
communications, and that we want the chair to be positioned to build confidence and
effectiveness;
3. Most relevant, the chairwoman made reference to some illusive plan that I supposedly had
with the governor regarding student vaccines (false), and that she “wants nothing to do with
it.” We grew increasingly confused by the chairwoman’s vacillation on COVID-related
decision-making. The chairwoman also implied that I might have something to do with the
negative press BOR is getting because they are silent on student vaccines (also false).

That the Chair of the Board would call one of my subordinates and suggest that I am going around
the Board and making secret plans with the governor and planting negative stories about the Board
is defamatory, hostile, and completely discredits me to my direct report. It also puts Cabinet
member #5 in a terrible position: what do they do with this information? What if they stand up to
the chair? What if they gets sick of this abuse and quit?

August 4th: You sent me the COVID Task Force’s recommendation regarding mandatory student
vaccines, which I shared with Board officers. I got no response.

12
August 4: I received a call from Cabinet member #2 around 3:00PM: The chairwoman had called
and told them “God gave her a plan” for resolving the student vaccine issue, and she asked them to
provide her with the governor’s number so she could share it with him. She also told Cabinet
member #2 to keep the conversation confidential (ie: away from me). Cabinet member #2 was
very disturbed to be put in this position and instructed to keep critical information from me. I told
Cabinet member #2 to document, and they emailed the exchange details to you and me. Once
again: The chairwoman was making a decision based on a conversation with God, going around me
to my direct reports, causing chaos in the midst of a health crisis, and then asking my team
members to assist her in executing a plan without my knowledge. This behavior violates the
Board’s own Handbook, is unethical, hostile to all involved, and violates my contract. It is also
abusive of my staff and a dereliction of duty during a public health emergency.

Cabinet member #2 provided Chairwoman McAdoo with the governor’s phone number as she had
directed.

I received another call from Cabinet member #2 around 8:30 pm: The chairwoman had called them
again, and Cabinet member #2 urged her to communicate with me directly, because I had updates I
wanted to share. Cabinet member #2 was trying to redirect her to the correct lines of
communications, but she seemed uninterested. She never called me.

I emailed the chairwoman the updates Cabinet member #2 had mentioned to her, but she never
responded.

Since then, on COVID: the chairwoman has been wildly inconsistent, indecisive, and attempting to
shift blame for inaction to me and my team, at times calling me obstructionist. She also routinely
appears to make her decisions based on direction from God. At first, she didn't even reply to my
recommendations (as with UNR/SNU). Since July 1st, she has gone to you, Cabinet member #2 and
Cabinet member #5 and directed your work, said she had a plan from God, and instructed you all to
keep information from me.

Friday, August 6th: I updated the Board officers, and invited you and Cabinet member #2 to join the
weekly officers’ meeting as we were trying to get our arms around COVID policy. Chairwoman
McAdoo instructed you to write a similar employee mandate policy for action at a special Board
meeting to be held August 27th. She demanded that that meeting and policy be posted “within
moments….like under 60 seconds” of the BOH taking its vote on student vaccines on August 20th.
She explained her rationale: that if the governor was going to “punish” students with required
vaccines, that it was “only fair” to do the same to employees. I tried to indicate the difficulty in
writing a sound health policy and providing meaningful opportunity for campus stakeholders
(shared governance) to give input, but she was adamant, and again took my advice as obstruction.6

Later this evening we got a very confusing series of texts telling us the August 27th meeting is off.

6
The hypocrisy of chastising me over shared governance in early August and then the complete disregard for it during
the employee policy development is stunning, and again illustrates no interest in taking my professional counsel.

13
In the middle of the night we then received a confusing email telling us the August 27th meeting is
back on.

This treatment from Board leadership is harassing, and defamatory, and I was getting increasingly
concerned that the officers were looking for missteps everywhere. I did not receive this treatment
from prior Board leadership, and it is disorienting, deeply distressing, and a huge distraction from
the performance of my job. Maybe that is the intent, to make me ineffective and create “cause” for
dismissal?

August 13th: At about 6:00 pm, on my way to dinner with a president, I learned that the Carson City
newspaper ran an article about COVID that incorrectly stated that the BOR took action on
mandating vaccines. Knowing that my team had left for the weekend, that Cabinet member #5 was
managing multiple health issues with family members, and that it would be impossible to get the
news desk to correct the issue until Monday, I planned to discuss the matter with Cabinet member
#5 first thing Monday morning. Errors of fact are common in journalism, and this was not an
emergency.

August 15th: I received livid texts from Chairwoman McAdoo, who demanded that I convene an
emergency Cabinet meeting to discuss the matter. I tried to explain that these errors are common,
this was not an emergency, and that we can’t fix it on a Sunday. She directed me to call the team
together. Three Cabinet members were out of state with their families. Cabinet member #5 was
visiting a family member who was in intensive care. Nevertheless, I was fearful that Chairwoman
McAdoo would accuse me of insubordination if I didn’t convene the group. In the end, Cabinet
member #5, Cabinet member #1, Cabinet member #3 and I got on the meeting and are told, “Each
of you could very easily get phone calls about this … When any of you become aware of anything
like that, you let me know.” I was effectively scolded in front of my subordinates, told how to do
my job, and we were all disrespected. It was horrifying.

August 16th: President #5 called to tell me that a senior staff member in SA had been publicly
undermining me. President #5 also informed me that the chairwoman, “has it out for you,” and
postulated that the senior staffer might be feeding the chairwoman misinformation about me and
that may be the source of the chairwoman’s mistrust. It is distressing to hear these things from the
president, another direct report.

August 17th: Regent Moran told me at lunch that he had received a call from Vice Chairman Carter
about a month prior. Vice Chairman Carter said he was calling Regent Moran at Chairwoman
McAdoo’s direction to seek his support to terminate me. Regent Moran reported to me that he
told Vice Chairman Carter there was no cause, and that such an action would create tremendous
liability for the BOR. This activity is a violation of my contract, and a possible violation of Open
Meeting Law if the vice chairman was making multiple calls, possibly creating a walking quorum.

August 18th: You sent me the COVID Task Force’s recommendation for employee vaccines.

August 18th: Cabinet member #1 told me in person that Chairwoman McAdoo had been scrutinizing
my reimbursement receipts and found I had erroneously spent .87 in state tax on a breakfast

14
receipt. She instructed Cabinet member #1 (another subordinate) to direct me to write a check
back to NSHE. I did so immediately and wrote another one for the same reason a few weeks later.
This is unbelievable micromanaging and humiliation. They totaled less than $4.00.

August 19th (I think): I requested a meeting with Chairwoman McAdoo, Interim Chief of Staff
Nikolajewski, and Cabinet member #2 to discuss next steps on an employee vaccine mandate,
because the direction we had received to this point was wildly changing, apparently based on
conversations with God, and sometimes non-existent. Chairwoman McAdoo accused me of
withholding information and resisting her direction on developing an employee vaccine
requirement. I gave my counsel, very directly: 1. Ask you to bring forward a Resolution to the fall
quarterly board meeting directing me to write the policy, 2. Use shared governance to get
community input, and 3. Bring forward the policy. She was incensed but later took that advice.

August 20: The BOH voted to require student COVID vaccines.

August 27th: In my weekly officers meeting, I shared that local media were asking me for a “First
Year” retrospective on lessons learned and what’s ahead. Chairwoman McAdoo expressed disbelief
that media would be interested and said she’d never heard of such a thing. I reminded her that
President Sandoval had done a similar interview recently. She seemed suspicious, calling these
requests, “very odd.” President Whitfield has since also conducted similar interviews, leaving me to
wonder why it is odd when I did so, but not when my two male subordinates did.

Next she turned to my annual review, complaining that it hadn’t been done and that “it’s not
Mark’s job; it’s mine…..I’m going to take over the process.” She was not the chair who oversaw my
work during year 1, so it would make no sense for her to oversee the review. More concerning, she
has articulated an agenda for my review; it seems an obvious pretext for creating cause for
dismissal, given that Regent Moran advised her (through Vice Chairman Carter) that she had no
grounds to take action against me. Vice Chairman Carter agreed with her and Chairwoman McAdoo
said she’d “take it up with Mark.”

August 31st: Vice Chairman Carter sent an email about my “management of the Legal
Department.” The recrimination of your work was disparaging and contained an erroneous
reference to an OML violation. It also called into question my management of the issue, which felt
fabricated and somewhat desperate. In the subsequent weekly call w/ officers (Sept. 2), I refuted
his accusations one by one, and later send a more complete response over email. He replied with a
dismissive and somewhat threatening response.

In same weekly meeting (Sept. 2), Chairwoman McAdoo attacked me for renewing the contracts of
lawyers Rory Reid and Mike Wixom, claiming that I had acted without Board oversight or
transparency. She insisted anything over $50,000 should go to Board and I reminded her the
threshold is more like $1 million. She has long been suspicious of Mr. Reid, which feels partisan in
nature, and micro-managing. I suspect she is critical of Mr. Wixom because he does not support
her inappropriate use of power. In any case, I was well within my rights as chancellor to engage
contractors in the due course of conducting NSHE business.

15
September 3rd: President #8 called, concerned by a meeting they had with Vice Chairman Carter.
He told President #8, more than once, that the officers are “in charge,” even though presidents
report to me. President #8 viewed this as undermining my authority. This reminds me of a
comment Chairwoman McAdoo had made to me weeks back in front of you and Cabinet member
#2, that the chancellor “might be the supervisor (of the presidents) but you are not their boss.”

September 8th: You and I had a confidential meeting with Internal Auditor Sunbury, HR Director
Olson, and Vice Chair of the Audit Committee Del Carlo to get advice about how best I might take
appropriate action on this increasingly untenable situation. Because our foundational documents
do not contemplate a process for an employment complaint against Board officers, this seemed like
an honorable place to begin and for me to get direction. As I have said to you, I want to do this by
the book and in the most discrete way possible. Notably, I reported the abusive behavior, and
fearing retaliation (which already seems quite advanced), I expressly invoked NRS 281.641,
Nevada’s whistleblower statute.

September 9th: President #7 (yet another direct report) told you during the Board meeting that
Chairwoman McAdoo had been attempting to reach the governor to seek his support in firing me.
The chair is actively making her intentions known to my subordinates (as well as other regents) and
trying to make them known to the governor, as well.

It may be worth documenting that in all of my 1:1 regents meetings in the fall, I made a point of
sharing that I am reflecting on my first year’s performance, believe in continuous improvement, and
that I welcomed their feedback, asking each, “Is there anything I could be doing better?” Regents
Brooks, Boylan, Geddes, Tarkanian, McMichael, Del Carlo, Carvalho, and Moran all said no. Regent
Arrascada said I could give shorter reports at special meetings, and Regent Perkins suggested that I
should “over communicate.” My conclusion from these and many other positive interactions with
the vast majority of our regents leads me to believe my only substantive challenge is with the
current officers, and that the officers are creating liability for the whole Board without them
knowing it.

September 9-10th: The Chairwoman’s dislike of me is palpable, visible to observers through her
placement of me as far away from her on the dais as possible. My predecessor was always seated
beside the chair during Board meetings, as is the tradition in higher education. Why would I be
treated differently? Regent Del Carlo told me people in this public meeting were noticing and
commenting on this change (the chairwoman did this also at the July Board meeting).

When Vice Chancellor Cage and I finished our strategic planning presentation, Chairwoman McAdoo
had only two dismissive remarks: 1. She mused that the item was not for Board action (sounding
disappointed), and 2. Summing up the presentation she said, “well….that was ….a lot.”

September 10th: During the Board meeting, one of our staff members overheard Vice Chairman
Carter speaking with a senior SA staffer, who was complaining about SA not being a real team, “let’s
have wine sometime and I’ll tell you all about it.” This seems like a completely inappropriate
conversation for my subordinate and Board officer to be having without my knowledge. It feels to

16
me like the officers are developing a culture where they are inviting disparagement and criticism of
me with my staff.

September 12th: Former Chairman Doubrava called to check in on me because former Vice Chair
Del Carlo had shared concerns with him about the abusive behavior going on. He was concerned. I
shared with him a few details and that I considered the abuse tantamount to a hostile work
environment. He expressed support, and shared that he would be finalizing my review for FY 21,
and that it would be positive. He voiced concern that Chairwoman McAdoo would try to take away
his right to conduct the review or refuse to place it on a Board agenda. I recommended that he
speak with you; he said he would, and that he “would not be quiet” about this matter.

September 13th: Cabinet member #1 told me that a senior SA staff member shared with him direct
knowledge that the chairwoman is trying to fire me. How would they know that unless through a
discussion with the chairwoman?

September 15th: During the Cabinet’s Retreat, NSHE issued a news release to publicize improved
vaccination rates across NSHE’s employees. Vice Chancellor Brooks received (with cc to me,
Chairwoman McAdoo and all of Brooks’ peers) a reprimand over email from Vice Chairman Carter,
who accused her of not understanding or misrepresenting data. Brooks crafted an email response,
to which Vice Chairman Carter replied that he would “take it up” with the Chair and the Chancellor.
He then emailed me separately, suggesting that perhaps in the future Vice Chancellor Brooks
should consult Vice Chancellor Abba when using data. This experience was condescending,
baseless, and abusive. Admonishing her this way in front of her peers appeared to me like a
microaggression against a Black woman with a Ph.D. When the matter came up in our subsequent
weekly officers meeting (Sept. 17th), Vice Chairman Carter said he’d “take it up with me at another
time.” He has never done so.

September 16-17th: Presidents’ retreat – President #8 shared with the group what Vice Chairman
Carter told them about reporting lines and my authority, and President #7 said they had received
the same admonishment. It is evident that everyone in attendance (my direct reports) is aware of
my troubles with the officers.

September 17th: During our weekly meeting Chairwoman McAdoo said multiple times how much
she cared about following the rules and observing protocol. Vice Chairman Carter asked to hear
about the Cabinet retreat, which was the week prior. And I learned that UNR had
again provided a special Board meeting agenda item directly to the chairwoman, not copying
anyone in my office. Mr. Wixom, who was on the email thread as outside real estate counsel,
contacted you and me, very concerned about another instance of improper process that left the
Chancellor’s office in the dark. I explained the consequences to officers, but Chairwoman McAdoo
justified herself based on Interim Chief of Staff Nikolajewski’s advice and having used this same
practice in the UNR/SNU matter. She promised me she would talk with you prior to approving the
item moving forward, but the next morning I find she has emailed UNR to approve. I believe she
never consulted with you.

17
The September special Board meeting agenda was posted Friday, September 24. Notably, it did not
contain any action to create an Ad Hoc Committee on Strategic Planning, which I have asked for to
support that work through Board engagement. I know that Regent Carvalho has volunteered for
that role, but the chairwoman has taken no action. I fear that the chairwoman will use Strategic
Planning as another way to undermine me, this time by denying resources from the Board office.

September 27th: I got a very distressed phone call from Regent Del Carlo. She reported that
Jennifer in the Board office had reached her by phone to schedule “a conversation about the
chancellor’s review.” Jennifer was calling on Chairwoman McAdoo’s behalf to get Del Carlo’s
availability. Jennifer later followed up via email. It is unclear to me whether this is a proposed
meeting of the Board, or just with Regent Del Carlo, but in any event it is a complete subversion of
the Handbook, the past officers’ proper oversight role, a possible violation of OML, and any respect
to me. The dates offered to Regent Del Carlo are notably all during my vacation. I feel these
actions are intended also to sabotage my time away; knowing that these activities are under way,
how am I to enjoy my vacation?

At the end of the day, I had an officers meeting. After covering all of my agenda items, I asked
whether the officers had any additional items to share with me, giving them the opportunity to
report on their intentions for my review. They said they had none: withholding the fact that they
are attempting to circumvent the proper review process, the rightful place of the past officers and
you within it, and any respect for me in the process.

September 29th: Cabinet member #1 reported to me that Chairwoman McAdoo has made
appointments with them and Cabinet member #3 regarding my performance evaluation. They
expressed concern, questioning why she would have done so when Chairman Doubrava oversaw
my work during the year being reviewed. They also questioned her motives, and voiced trepidation
about being part of a faulty process. I had no idea the chairwoman was making appointments with
my subordinates, leading me to wonder who else she has approached regarding my performance
without my knowledge.

Lately I am noticing that the pattern of excluding me is broadening: the chairwoman is working
around me and not keeping me informed on matters far beyond Board agendas or my review. The
chairwoman has been asking Cabinet members (not me directly) for information about my spending
on consultants and recently decided to approve Regent Brooks’ request to carry a concealed
weapon at our building without consulting or notifying me. These are disturbing signs of her cutting
me out and leaving me in the dark about an increasing array of important matters that require my
participation.

September 29, 2021: I saw Regents Perkins and Carvalho, as well as Vice Chairman Carter at an NSC
event. After the event, Regent Carvalho shared with me that the vice chairman had been
complaining to her about me, saying that the “chancellor’s office needs to be reigned in.” When
she pressed for his reasoning, he could not provide specific examples of poor performance or
overreach. When she asked whether he had discussed his concerns with me, he admitted he had
not. That Vice Chairman Carter was openly complaining about me in my presence at a very public

18
event where others might overhear is unprofessional and undermining.

These developments indicate that the Board officers are actively inviting criticism and
disparagement of my work, in public settings and with unspecified individuals without my
knowledge or consent. Cultivating this kind of toxic culture is counterproductive to our core
mission, and abusive to me. I am concerned that my employers are knowingly damaging my
reputation in this community, which ultimately will harm the NSHE mission as well as my own ability
to succeed. I also fear that if they do in fact succeed in firing me, my reputation will be damaged
such that it is difficult for me to find work and I will experience significant financial loss as a result.

September 30, 2021: I learned after the meeting that Chairwoman McAdoo has no fewer than 28
upcoming meetings, all scheduled at her request, with various individuals to discuss my
performance. She did not inform me of this action herself; rather, I learned it from the individuals
she sought out. Some of them are deeply concerned that they are being swept into an
inappropriate personnel action and do not know how to respond. These meetings, I assume, are to
gather information and opinions regarding my performance for a review she is not authorized to
conduct. Given that I have learned her ultimate intent is to have me fired, I question her motives
for these meetings. I also wonder whether other regents know she is conducting these improper
conversations on their behalf, without notifying me or you of her intent prior to scheduling them. I
find the timing of all of this very curious: During an intensely stressful week (the BOR is considering
its COVID vaccine mandate policy today), this is how she uses her time? Also concerning is that it
appears very deliberate to me that she has scheduled all of these meetings while I am away on
vacation.

October 2, 2021: I was very disturbed to learn from you today that in a call with the chairwoman
Friday night,7 she indicated that if your legal analysis did not align with her intention to perform my
evaluation that “your professional career would be in jeopardy,” and that she would conduct the
review herself irrespective of your legal interpretation. This is very disturbing news on several
fronts, and points to a chairwoman who is threatening retaliation unless you provide a legal
interpretation that supports her intent. No lawyer can ethically provide counsel contrary to their
truly held interpretation, in part because your very job is to protect your client. Knowingly giving
them unsound advice, and therefore leaving them vulnerable to litigation, would be an abrogation
of your duty, and to threaten you like this is abusive, retaliatory, and wrong.

This development also bolsters my view that the chairwoman is out to get me at all costs, even if
doing so violates policy and defies your legal advice. Still, from what I have learned during my short
time at NSHE is that this kind of abuse against attorneys is commonplace. There is a culture it
seems where lawyers have been similarly threatened and quit or have been pushed out when a
regent does not like their counsel. As I recall you received a very similar threat from another regent
earlier this year when you wrote the legal brief regarding land grant status. I am worried for your

7
As a side note, I also find it completely disrespectful that she required you to work on Friday, following the Board
meeting, knowing that it was your son’s birthday, that I had approved you taking a vacation day to celebrate, and that
you had been working nonstop for a month to write the COVID employee vaccine policy. To then call you late on Friday
night to berate you is abusive.

19
job security and that the chairwoman might disparage you as I believe she is currently disparaging
me.

I believe that in seeking to hire “their own lawyer,” some regents are attempting to venue shop and
to find a lawyer they can direct, rather than appreciating that an ethical lawyer’s job is to provide
honest and sincerely held legal counsel to their client. Doing so is the mark of loyalty to the
organization, not its opposite. While you may disappoint a particular regent by delivering news
they do not like, you are upholding your duty to protect the organization, even when you are
protecting it from one of its own.

I will provide one final example of abuse of power, which when compared with the above pales in
terms of impact but is notable for the sheer number of complaints I have received: Chairwoman
McAdoo requires staff to drive her around to meetings. I have probably received a dozen
complaints from presidents, Cabinet members, and front-line assistants. She will ask for rides with
no situational awareness that employees have no ability to say no. I have several employees in the
Las Vegas office who have asked me to protect them if they decline to drive her. The lack of
awareness regarding appropriate roles and power dynamics has left a number of employees afraid
of retaliation.

Conclusion

I reluctantly provide you with this documentation in the hopes that this abusive, undermining, and
demoralizing behavior will stop. The effects of this hostile environment are taking a personal toll on
my physical and mental health. They are also creating an environment where I cannot fulfill my
obligations to NSHE and the state, and the results of my ineffectiveness will ultimately harm higher
education in the state of Nevada. The active efforts to undermine my reputation may also carry
long-term professional and financial consequences even if I were to seek employment outside of
Nevada. These same negative impacts have been expressed to me by multiple members of Cabinet.

The officers have made their ultimate goal plain to other regents, presidents, possibly the governor,
and apparently, at least one of my staff members. By shooting constant verbal barbs at me, making
innuendo that I am disloyal or not transparent (without examples), refusing to support my work,
undermining me to my subordinates, abusing my subordinates, generally sidelining or discrediting
anyone who appears to support me, and creating meaningless work for me through
micromanagement (such as the 20 hours I spent creating this document), I may ultimately be so
distracted and unsure of myself that I make a misstep that they see as actionable. I recognize this
behavior for what it is: an effort to manufacture cause for dismissal because, in seeking out Regent
Moran’s vote for termination, the officers discovered that path is not currently available to them
without my falling short.

There is a certain kind of gaslighting occurring here as well. Like the behaviors frequently
documented among abused spouses, I have found myself doubting my performance, or questioning
whether I am overreacting. And, like someone trapped in a cycle of abuse, I have attempted to stop
the abuse through compliance and deference. Now recognizing this for what it is – a hostile work

20
environment – I cannot continue to submit to the abuse. Any reasonable person watching this
unfold would agree with my conclusion.

I should mention that there is a clear and I believe deliberate pattern here related to anyone the
officers see as actively supporting me: at every turn, the officers have either questioned their work
product, challenged me for retaining them (contractors Rory Reid and Mike Wixom), or disparaged
or refused to assign them meaningful Board activities (Regents Carvalho and Del Carlo).8 This
punitive and caustic behavior extends to all who the officers distrust, believe support me and/or
question the officers’ conduct. I assume it serves also as a chilling effect on others, a warning not to
get too close to me, and it certainly could erode my effectiveness by isolating me.

I cannot know the officers’ motives for this abusive behavior. However, I do not believe my male
predecessor was ever treated this way. I do not believe my male presidents (subordinates) are
being treated this way. The chairwoman has told me several times that not being from Nevada is a
liability (upon learning that I am a native Californian, she once replied that she refuses to accept a
rental car with California plates). She has also shared with Cabinet member #4 her suspicion of
female professionals. At one point, I know that Chairwoman McAdoo told Cabinet member #2 that
she was tired of all the “women’s leadership” talk in the office. I cannot know what motivates her
or Vice Chairman Carter to treat me as they do, and as mentioned above, it may well be I have a
subordinate who is feeding them misinformation. In any case, the pattern appears to align with my
sex, and as a member of this protected class, I respectfully ask for immediate relief from this toxic
behavior so that I might do the job I was hired to do.

I have corroborating evidence in email, should that prove useful. I hope that NSHE will initiate an
investigation into my claims, as I believe such an investigation will yield further evidence of a hostile
work environment. I will cooperate in any way that might be useful.

By documenting these ethical and legal violations, I believe I am protecting the Board of Regents.
Though it is deeply upsetting to me to provide these unsavory details, I believe that only by
surfacing the violations of the current officers can the integrity of the Board of Regents be
maintained. To withhold these abuses of power would be in my view tantamount to disrespecting
NSHE as a public body, the taxpayers who fund our work, and the students who depend on us to
work honestly and to be model public servants.

Ultimately, I hope the Board of Regents will protect me from this abuse and support me in doing
the job they hired me to do. I love this job, our mission, my new home, and the people with whom I
have the privilege to work. I made some significant sacrifices to take this job, away from my home
of 25 years in Oregon. I was hired to perform the role of chancellor, and I only ask to be allowed to
do that work, with the fullness of my capabilities, knowledge, and experience, and with total
dedication to our noble purpose. Thank you for taking action to resolve this unfortunate
circumstance.

21