Board of Regents' Meeting Minutes - May 14-15, 1992
UCCSN Board of Regents' Meeting Minutes
May 14-15, 1992
05-14-1992
Pages 85-130
BOARD OF REGENTS
UNIVERSITY AND COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM OF NEVADA
May 14-15, 1992
The Board of Regents met on the above date in the Pine Auditorium
Jot Travis Student Union, University of Nevada, Reno.
Members present: Mrs. Carolyn M. Sparks, Chairman
Mrs. Shelley Berkley
Dr. Jill Derby
Dr. James Eardley
Mrs. Dorothy S. Gallagher
Dr. Lonnie Hammargren
Mr. Daniel J. Klaich
Members absent: Mr. Joseph M. Foley
Mrs. June F. Whitley
Others present: Chancellor Mark H Dawson
President Anthony Calabro, WNCC
President Joseph Crowley, UNR
President John Gwaltney, TMCC
President Robert Maxson, UNLV
President Paul Meacham, CCSN
President Ronald Remington, NNCC
President Jim Taranik, DRI
Mr. Donald Klasic, General Counsel
Mr. Ron Sparks, Vice Chancellor
Mrs. Karen Steinberg, Acting Vice Chancellor
Ms. Mary Lou Moser, Secretary
Also present were Faculty Senate Chairmen Bill Baines (TMCC),
Carolyn Collins (CCSN), Richard Egami (DRI), Michon Mackedon
(WNCC), Ed Nickel (NNCC), Ellen Pillard (UNR), Becky Seibert
(Unit), Robert Skaggs (UNLV), and Student Association Officers.
Vice Chairman James Eardley called the meeting to order at 11:25
A.M. Thursday, May 14, 1992, with all Regents present except
Regents Foley, Klaich, Sparks and Whitley.
1. Introductions
President Crowley introduced Dr. David Lightner, who is the
recipient of the Regents' Researcher Award for 1992, and Ms.
Alana Kroll, who is the recipient of the Outstanding Student
of the Year Award for 1992.
Chancellor Dawson introduced Ms. Kathy Odinski, President
of Nevada Adult Education Association, who presented Vice
Chairman James Eardley the Nevada Adult Education Associa-
tion's Accommodation Award for outstanding accomplishments
in adult education, and the Mountain Plains Adult Educa-
tion Association's Accommodation Award for outstanding
contributions for the advancement of adult education in
Nevada. In addition, Ms. Odinski presented a demographics
book of the 8 Western States to Vice Chairman Eardley and
Chancellor Dawson.
President Crowley introduced ASUN President Samantha
Dollison and newly elected Faculty Senate Chairman Ellen
Pillard.
President Maxson introduced newly elected Faculty Senate
Chairman Bob Skaggs, newly elected CSUN President Joel
Kostman, student leader Mike Kennedy, and outgoing Faculty
Senate Chairman Lori Temple.
President Taranik introduced Faculty Senate Chairman
Richard Egami and outgoing Faculty Senate Chairman Lonnie
Pippin.
President Meacham introduced newly elected Faculty Chairman
Carolyn Collins and outgoing Faculty Senate Chairman Candace
Kant.
President Gwaltney introduced newly elected ASTM President
Charlie Covington and outgoing ASTM President Kay Adair.
President Remington introduced newly elected ASB President
Jennifer Stevenson, outgoing ASB President Tammy Robinson,
and Faculty Senate Chairman Ed Nickel who will serve a
second consecutive term.
President Calabro introduced newly elected USA President
Debi Green, outgoing USA President Jayne Podratz, and
Faculty Senate Chairman Michon Mackedon.
2. Approved Consent Agenda
Approved the Consent Agenda (identified as Ref. A, filed
with the permanent minutes), containing the following:
(1) Approved the minutes of the special meeting held
March 24, 1992 and minutes of the regular meeting
held April 9-10, 1992.
(2) Approved the gifts, grants and contracts, listed in
Ref. C-1, filed with the permanent minutes.
(3) Approved to grant a third year of leave without pay
for Dr. Mohammed Yousef, Professor of Biological
Sciences at UNLV.
(4) Approved the following appointments to the Management
Information Systems Advisory Council at UNLV:
Paul Padilla, Las Vegas William Robinson, Las Vegas
Ron Jones, Las Vegas Herb Peebles, N. Las Vegas
Steve Chapin, Las Vegas Davan Weddle, Las Vegas
Tim Mc Carthy, Las Vegas James J. Ratigan, Las Vegas
Randy Ranck, Las Vegas Ron Quenzler, Las Vegas
Jim Boyd, Las Vegas Ernie Piece, Las Vegas
(5) Approved the following appointments to the Public
Administration Advisory Committee at UNLV:
Dolores Brosnan, Las Vegas Donald L. Shalmy, Las Vegas
William Curran, Las Vegas Jon Sjoberg, Las Vegas
James Devlin, Las Vegas James Spinello, Las Vegas
Phillip Lowry, Las Vegas Carolyn Usher, Las Vegas
Nikolas, Mastrangello, L.V.Steve Waugh, Las Vegas
Patricia Mulroy, Las Vegas Janet Weise, Henderson
William Noonan, Las Vegas
(6) Approved the following appointments to the Board of
Directors of the Accounting Circle at UNLV:
Gary Acord, Las Vegas B. Michl Lloyd, Las Vegas
Wes Allison, Las Vegas Amelia Morton, Las Vegas
Selma Bartlett, Henderson Reuben Neumann, Las Vegas
Bob Beers, Las Vegas Tomoo Okada, Las Vegas
John Campbell, Las Vegas Diane Radunz, Las Vegas
Chris Coquillard, Las VegasKen Sawyer, Las Vegas
Verlie Doing, Searchlight Michelle Stickney, L. V.
Louis Du Bois, Las Vegas Dan Towbin, Las Vegas
Juan Garcia, Las Vegas Joel Towbin, Las Vegas
Weldon Havins, Las Vegas Joseph F. Zerga, Las Vegas
(7) Approved the following appointments to be Professional
Accounting Advisory Council at UNLV:
John Back, Jr., Las Vegas Robert L. Kreml, Las Vegas
Wm. Broadus, Manassas, Va. B. Michl Lloyd, Las Vegas
Diane S. Conant, Las Vegas Wayne A. Label, Las Vegas
Jon M. Donnell, Las Vegas William Luthy, Las Vegas
R. Flaherty, Tempe, Ariz. Scott Y. Mac Taggart, L. V.
Gregory J. Gale, Las Vegas Leland D. Pace, Las Vegas
Jim Griffin, Henderson L. Ralph Piercy, Las Vegas
Pat Johnson, Las Vegas Bruce E. Ward, Las Vegas
William Wells, Las Vegas
(8) Approved the appointment of Mr. A. J. Dubuc, Jr. to
the CCSN Advisory Board.
(9) In an effort to further market UNR's logistics pro-
gram, the Board of Regents approved the establishment
of a National Advisory Board at UNR.
The purpose of this Board not only would be to assist
in the placement of our students, but also to provide
expertise to our program as we expand nationally and
incorporate a global perspective into the program.
In addition, the Board approved the following appoint-
ments to the Center for Logistics Management National
Advisory Board at UNR:
Bryce Adolph, San Francisco, California
Robert V. Delaney, St. Louis, Missouri
George Gecowets, Oak Brook, Illinois
Harry Goldberg, San Jose, California
Patrick Guerra, Sunnyvale, California
Bernard J. Hale, Irvine, California
Omar K. Helferich, East Lansing, Michigan
Warren Merz, Dearborn, Michigan
Ed Root, Toledo, Ohio
Richard J. Sherman, Elk Grove Village, Illinois
Dennis Young, Lansing, Michigan
(10) Approved the following appointments to the TMCC Ad-
visory Board:
Janet J. Berry, Reno (Replaces Joan Kenney)
Walt Katai, Reno (Replaces Paul Bible)
Gordon Krammer, Sparks (Replaces Fred Laing)
Carol Miller, Sparks (Replaces Carlos Romo)
(11) Approved the addition to the Handbook, Title 4,
Chapter 17, Section 11, Special Course Fees at WNCC:
ENG 258 - Ashland Theatre Festival $60.00 per course
(12) Approved the Handbook changes, Title 4, Chapter 17,
Sections 17.3, Apartment Rentals, and 18.1 and 18.2,
The College Inn at UNR:
A. Title 4, Chapter 17, Section 17.3, Stead Residence
Hall Rates
(Entirely deleted)
B. Title 4, Chapter 17, Sections 18.1 and 18.2, The
College Inn
See Ref. C-11, filed in the Regents' Office, for
documentation.
(13) Approved the following interlocal agreements:
A. UCCSN Board of Regents/UNR and the Nevada Depart-
ment of Wildlife (Interlocal Contract)
Effective Date: March 1, 1992 to June 30, 1997
Amount : $350,000 to UNR over six year
period
Purpose : Study of genetic makeup of black
bass in Lake Mead.
B. UCCSN Board of Regents/UNR and the Nevada Depart-
ment of Conservation and Natural Resources
(Interlocal Contract)
Effective Date: January 1, 1992 to September 30,
1992
Amount : $24,000 to UNR
Purpose : Water Polution Control Program.
C. UCCSN Board of Regents/UNR and the Nevada Depart-
ment of Wildlife (Interlocal Contract)
Effective Date: March 1, 1992 to June 30, 1997
Amount : $641,856 to UNR
Purpose : Riparian hydrology research.
Dr. Derby moved adoption of the Consent Agenda and approval
of the prepared agenda with the authority to change the
order of items as specified throughout the meeting. Mrs.
Berkley seconded. Motion carried.
3. Chancellor's Report
Chancellor Dawson reported that he is establishing a Multi-
Year Contract Committee to review the current guidelines
and policies and will report back to the Board at the June
meeting. The Committee members are as follows:
Dr. Jill Derby
Dr. James Eardley
Mr. Joseph M. Foley
Mrs. Carolyn M. Sparks
Dr. Joseph Crowley (to serve as Chairman)
Dr. John Gwaltney
Dr. Robert Maxson
Dr. Paul Meacham
Chancellor Dawson stated that the purpose of the "Chancel-
lor's Report" was to inform the Board of Regents of events
that take place throughout the System. He informed the
Board that President Calabro has earned the nickname "Crash
Calabro" by trying to ride a bike and walk his German
Shepherd at the same time.
4. Approved the Appointment of Vice Chancellor for Academic
Affairs
Approved the appointment of Dr. John Richardson as Vice
Chancellor for Academic Affairs, UCCSN, at the annual salary
of $114,200, without employee paid retirement, with an auto-
mobile allowance of $6000 per year within the 50-mile radius
of Reno, effective July 1, 1992. The position will be on
a one-year appointment and renewed annually.
Mrs. Gallagher moved approval of the appointment of Dr. John
Richardson as Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, UCCSN,
at the annual salary of $114,200, effective July 1, 1992.
Dr. Hammargren seconded. Motion carried.
5. Approved the Appointment of Dean of Instruction, NNCC
Approved the appointment of Mr. William Bonaudi as Dean of
Instruction at NNCC, at the annual salary of $70,071, with
tenure as Biology Professor, and moving expenses from Reno.
Mrs. Gallagher moved approval of the appointment of Mr.
William Bonaudi as Dean of Instruction at NNCC, at the
annual salary of $70,071, with tenure as Biology Professor.
Dr. Derby seconded. Motion carried.
6. Approved Handbook Addition, Criminal, Safety and Security
Video Surveillance, UCCSN
Approved the Criminal, Safety and Security Video Surveil-
lance Policy. The proposed policy was developed by the
UCCSN Surveillance Policy Committee, Chaired by UNLV Faculty
Senate Chairman, Lori Temple, with membership that included
Regents, Administration, faculty, Campus law enforcement
representatives, and students from the System. Inasmuch
as the Surveillance Policy Committee finalized the policy
at its meeting on May 7, 1992, the following was distrib-
uted:
Title 4, Chapter 1, Section 13
Section 13. Covert Video Surveillance
The use of covert video surveillance for anything other
than a criminal investigation on the Campuses of the
University and Community College System of Nevada is
prohibited. This policy shall not interfere with the
legitimate use of video taping for academic purposes.
Dr. Temple stated that she had received positive responses
from all faculties or Faculty Senate Executive Committees
on the proposed policy. Mr. Dave Hollenbeck, UNLV Director
of Public Safety, stated that he and Mr. Ken Sjoen, UNR
Chief of Police, are in agreement and feel it is a fair
policy for the System.
Dr. Hammargren moved approval of the Handbook addition re-
garding Covert Video Surveillance. Mrs. Berkley seconded.
Motion carried.
7. Approved Retention of Assistant to Chancellor for Community
College Concerns
Approved the continuation of Doug Burris as Assistant to
the Chancellor for Community College Concerns from July 1,
1992 through June 30, 1993. The compensation is to be
paid from the Regents' Special Project funds. Chancellor
Dawson stated that the $100,000 amount listed in the agenda
was not quite correct. The salary was to be $102,787, with
employer-paid retirement. It was his intent that the com-
pensation package be at the same level as the System Office
Vice Chancellors. He said that UCCSN will be seeking per-
manent funding from the next legislative session for this
position. The Chancellor stated that as UCCSN looks to the
coming year, it needs the support of Mr. Burris in the fol-
lowing areas:
1) Completion of the development of the process for Com-
munity College academic master planning.
2) Development of support positions for Community College
issues during the legislative session.
3) Pursue the role and involvement of the Community Col-
leges in areas related to the economic development
of Nevada.
4) Further enhance the System's involvement and coordina-
tion with other State agencies, e. g., State Department
of Education.
5) Give direction to the design of staff development needs,
e. g., workshops, etc.
6) Assist the Colleges with the design of their plans for
transfer support services and individual transfer guar-
anty contracts.
7) Assist the System with the formal introduction of TQM
(Total Quality Management) programming.
8) Support the Community Colleges of the System in their
development and expansion of the high school/Community
College articulation (program coordination) such as 2+2
and tech prep.
9) Assist with the exploration of options available to
support distance learning needs.
Dr. Derby moved approval of the retention of the Assistant
to Chancellor for Community College Concerns at UCCSN until
June 30, 1993, with compensation as recommended by the
Chancellor to come from the Regents' Special Projects Funds.
Mrs. Gallagher seconded. Motion carried.
8. Approved Emeritus Appointments
Approved the following emeritus appointments as recommended
by the Presidents:
A. University of Nevada, Las Vegas - President Maxson rec-
ommended:
Richard Brooks, Emeritus Professor of Anthropology,
effective June 30, 1992
Sheilagh Brooks, Emeritus Distinguished Professor of
Anthropology, effective June 30, 1992
Mrs. Gallagher moved approval of the Emeritus appointments
at UNLV. Mrs. Berkley seconded. Motion carried.
9. Approved Recommendations for Award to Tenure
The following recommendations for tenure have been forwarded
for Board consideration.
Note: The titles stated in this agenda item are descriptive
only. Faculty are tenured in institutions, and not
in particular employment positions.
A. University of Nevada, Reno - President Crowley recom-
mended the following award to tenure, effective July 1,
1992, to the following:
*La Verne M. Jeanne, Anthropology, Arts and Science
B. University of Nevada, Las Vegas - President Maxson
recommended award to tenure, effective July 1, 1992,
to the following:
*Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Economics, College and Business and
Economics
*Also recommended for Promotion or Assignment to Rank.
Mrs. Gallagher moved approval of Award to Tenure for UNR and
UNLV. Mrs. Berkley seconded. Motion carried.
10. Approved Recommendations for Promotion or Assignment to Rank
The following recommendations for promotion or assignment
to rank have been forwarded for Board consideration.
A. University of Nevada, Reno - President Crowley recom-
mended the following promotion, effective July 1, 1992:
*La Verne M. Jeanne to Associate Professor of Anthro-
pology, College of Arts and Science
B. University of Nevada, Las Vegas - President Maxson rec-
ommended the following promotion, effective July 1,
1992:
*Hans-Hermann Hoppe to Professor of Economics, College of
Business and Economics
*Also recommended for Award of Tenure.
Mrs. Gallagher moved approval of Promotion or Assignment to
Rank for UNR and UNLV. Mrs. Berkley seconded. Motion
carried.
The open meeting recessed at 12:00 P.M. to move into Foundation
meetings, and reconvened at 1:10 P.M. Thursday, May 14, 1992,
with all Regents present except Regents Foley, Hammargren, Sparks
and Whitley.
11. Approved Tenure on Hire, UNR
Approved tenure on hire for Dr. Chaitan P. Gupta, Chair of
Mathematics Department, effective July 1, 1992.
This request complies with the Board policy adopted April,
1992.
President Crowley stated that he was aware that Chairman
Sparks had some concern about the number of tenure on
hires which UNR has recently brought forward to the Board,
but he assured the Board that all tenure on hires have been
for leadership positions and these Departments could not
have recruited these people without granting them tenure.
It is a very small percentage of hires that he has re-
quested tenure on hire and reminded the Board that UNR
recruits during the Spring season.
Mr. Klaich moved approval of the tenure on hire for Dr.
Chaitan P. Gupta, Chair of Mathematics Department at UNR,
effective July 1, 1992. Dr. Derby seconded. Motion
carried.
12. Report and Recommendations of the Academic Affairs Committee
A report and recommendations of the Academic Affairs Commit-
tee meeting, held May 14, 1992 were made by Regent Jill
Derby, Chairman.
(1) Information Only: Report on Status of Campus Plans -
The Chancellor's Office of Academic Affairs has re-
quested each Campus to prepare a presentation to the
Committee on the status of their academic master
planning activities. Each Campus provided an update.
On behalf of the four Community Colleges, Mr. Doug
Burris, Assistant to the Chancellor, reported that
the design of the master planning activities for the
Community Colleges is similar to the Strategic Direc-
tions Report, which was previously discussed, along
with the Community College mission statements which
were approved at the April 9-10, 1992 Board of Regents'
meeting. In accordance with Dr. Harold Enarson,
consultant on UCCSN mission statements, the Community
College mission statement is broad and would provide
a good work plan. Mr. Burris stated that the academic
master planning activities for Community Colleges
would be completed over the next two-year period in
order to consider the biennial budget plans. It is
the Community College directive to focus on the proc-
ess, with the academic master plan being a continual
activity. The Community Colleges will report on an
annual basis which will address the reflection on
the stated goals, accomplishments and additions to
the plans no later than November 1, 1992.
Upon questioning, it was explained that there are two
plans being developed by the institutions at this
time: Physical Master Plan and Academic Master Plan.
Mrs. Karen Steinberg, Acting Vice Chancellor for
Academic Affairs, stated that over the next two-month
period, she is hopeful that several recommendations
will be presented by the Academic Affairs Council to
the Board for its consideration regarding suggestions
presented by the consultants to the Board. She empha-
sized that the process will take approximately two
years and that the stated strategic plans will pull
the two plans together.
Dr. Robert Hoover, UNR Vice President for Academic
Affairs, distributed a document entitled, "Strategic
Vision Statement and Decision Process, May 13, 1992",
which is filed in the Regents' Office. He highlighted
the document which addressed: Planning Assumptions;
The Vision - An outstanding, small, land-grant Uni-
versity addressing local, state and regional problems;
Milestones for Establishment of the Vision and Pri-
orities; and Possible Vision Priorities. He stated
that UNR will report back to the Board on its prog-
ress in January 1993.
Mrs. Gallagher questioned how new programs would be
initiated prior to January 1993, and President Crowley
stated that program reviews will begin after January
1993 and will be linked to the Academic Master Plan.
Dr. Eardley questioned whether "in-service" programs
were being implemented to develop quality teachers,
and Dr. Hoover replied that there are three ways in
which UNR teachers are evaluated: 1) student evalua-
tion, 2) effectiveness of teacher on providing know-
ledge and creating a learning environment in the
classroom, and 3) assessment program. He stated that
UNR provides each student an opportunity to evaluate
the teachers. President Crowley cautioned the Com-
mittee by stating that student evaluations are im-
portant, but are not the only criteria to evaluate
teachers. He explained that the current student is
the starting point of assessing teachers, but the
assessment of alumni is also important due to the
fact that the alumnus would probably have a different
opinion after his/her formal education.
Dr. John Unrue, UNLV Provost and Senior Vice Presi-
dent, explained the process which UNLV is undertaking
at this time. A committee on master planning has been
formed and it is projected that all Campus units will
have developed five-year plans to be completed by Fall
1992. He stated that no new programs are slated until
after the report to the Board in the Fall.
Dr. Derby stated, that as Chairman of the Academic
Affairs Committee, she is appreciative that institu-
tions are withholding all new programs until the
master academic plans are developed.
Dr. Bill Bishop, DRI Vice President of Research, stated
that although DRI is not a degree-granting institution,
it is developing a master academic plan which will be
coordinated with the two Universities and will be re-
ported to the Board after deliberations with the Uni-
versities.
Mrs. Gallagher expressed her appreciation to all the
institutions for their efforts in making the academic
master plan a reality.
(2) Information Only: Academic Affairs Retreat - Chairman
Derby stated that the Academic Affairs Council and the
Academic Affairs Committee are developing an agenda
for an Academic Affairs Retreat on academic planning.
Mrs. Karen Steinberg, Acting Vice Chancellor for Aca-
demic Affairs, stated that she would like to discuss
this retreat with the new Vice Chancellor for Academic
Affairs and will inform the Committee members of the
time, date, place and agenda in the near future.
Chairman Derby suggested the agenda address the proc-
ess which Campuses use in developing new programs.
(3) Information Only: Discussion of New Program Approval -
At the April Board meeting, the Committee began a
discussion concerning approval of new program pro-
posals and the relationship of the approval process
to the Board criteria of Campus role and mission
statements and academic master plans. Chairman Derby
stated that it is her understanding that some new
programs cannot wait until the academic master plan
is completed. Mrs. Karen Steinberg, Acting Vice
Chancellor for Academic Affairs, stated that the
Academic Affairs Council has discussed this issue
several times and has determined that it is important
for the planning process to continue along side the
academic master plan. The preference would be to hold
all new programs until the plans are in place, but
offer an option to bring forward a limited number of
new programs with additional criteria on why it is
necessary and how resources will be secured to fund
the new program. She informed the Committee that
UNLV has several programs on hold at this time, UNR
has 3 or 4 programs, and the Community Colleges have
no new programs at this time, but will probably have
a few in the Fall.
Mr. Klaich moved approval of the report and recommendations
of the Academic Affairs Committee. Mrs. Gallagher seconded.
Motion carried.
Mr. Klaich extended his appreciation to Mrs. Karen Steinberg for
an "incredible" job which she has undertaken as Acting Vice
Chancellor for Academic Affairs. Mrs. Gallagher concurred and
Dr. Derby added that during her service it has been a very
critical time for Academic Affairs throughout the System.
Chancellor Dawson introduced Mary Warejcka, Education Reporter
for the Reno Gazette-Journal.
Dr. Hammargren returned to the meeting.
13. Approved UCCSN Code, Disciplinary Procedures, and Handbook
Change, Discrimination Grievance Procedures, UCCSN
Approved amendments to the UCCSN Code, Chapter 6, Rules
and Disciplinary Procedures for Members of the University
Community, and to the Board of Regents' Handbook, Title 4,
Chapter 8, Section 9, Grievance Procedures as Related to
Equal Opportunity, as contained in Ref. G, filed with the
permanent minutes.
These amendments have been circulated to the Chancellor, the
Presidents and the Faculty Senate Chairs for comments in
accordance with Section 1.3.3 of the UCCSN Code.
General Counsel Klasic stated for the record that the pro-
posed UCCSN Code changes are not expressly sexual harass-
ment policies, but apply to all forms of discipline in the
System. However, sexual harassment problems and complaints
have inspired the changes that are being brought forward
for Board consideration. In July 1991, General Counsel
Klasic proposed a solution to the delayed process of ad-
dressing disciplinary and grievance procedures, whereby
UCCSN would follow the University of Washington's model by
eliminating the faculty from the process. General Counsel
Klasic explained that by having faculty serve on the com-
mittees, no sooner would the committee/panel be formed,
then a faculty member would either leave on sabbatical or
for the Summer, or to take another job. However, the Facul-
ty Senates had a problem with eliminating faculty from the
committees and suggested that the procedures be changed to
speed up the process. In retrospect, General Counsel Klasic
agrees with the Faculty Senates and the proposed UCCSN Code
changes emanated from the Faculty Senates' concerns. They
suggested that a time limit of six months be enforced, from
the beginning of the complaint to the end of the complaint.
General Counsel Klasic proceeded by highlighting some of
the proposed changes.
1) Ref. G, Page 4 of 13, is not a change to the UCCSN
Code, but to the Board of Regents' Handbook, Title 4,
Chapter 8, Section 9, Discrimination Grievance Pro-
cedures, which is a different procedure from the
discipline procedure. In the past, so many complaints
were filed on sexual harassment with the Affirmative
Action Officer and the question became whether to
follow this procedure or to follow the UCCSN Code,
Chapter 6 procedure. The problem with following this
procedure is that it is impossible to discipline under
the Handbook procedure. The proposed change would
give the Affirmative Action Officer, in consultation
with the institutional President, the flexibility to
decide in certain cases, primarily where discipline
is the goal that is to be sought, and give the Of-
ficer the opportunity to avoid the Handbook procedure
and go directly into Chapter 6. This would eliminate
the time problem.
2) Ref. G, Page 5 or 13, UCCSN Code, Chapter 6, Section
6.2.4, Sexual Harassment, is a new policy. The Fac-
ulty Senates suggested that a procedure be implemented
that would separate the parties so that there would
be no retaliation and the uncomfortable and difficult
problems that exist when the accused and the victim
work closely together. Upon further discussion with
the Faculty Senates who wished for a more flexible
procedure, General Counsel Klasic proposed the above
referenced language and amendments to Section 6.5,
Administrative Leave (which used to be titled "Im-
mediate Suspension"). A new policy, Section 6.5.1(c),
allows UCCSN to remove a person from the institution
with leave with pay. A quick 10 day administrative
hearing would be called as to whether it is proper
to put the person on leave.
3) Ref. G, Page 9 of 13, UCCSN Code, Chapter 6, Section
6.12.3, appointment of the Special Hearing Committee,
has additional language added to the policy. General
Counsel Klasic explained that in the past the Hearing
Committee consisted of the Faculty Senate Grievance
Committees, but what is actually needed is to select
a special and independent panel for these matters.
The persons selected to serve must fulfill his/her
obligations to the panel. In addition, the Adminis-
tration must also allow these persons time to perform
his/her obligations to the panel.
4) Ref. G, Page 13 of 13, UCCSN Code, Chapter 6, Section
6.15, Records, has additional language added to the
policy. General Counsel Klasic reminded the Board
that this policy not only deals with sexual harassment
cases, but all disciplinary proceedings. The current
policy is that everything in a disciplinary matter
is confidential with the exception of a decision of
the President. General Counsel Klasic proposed the
following language:
"All reports and decisions reached after hearings
or appeals held under this chapter are declared
to be public records subject to the provisions or
exclusions of the public records laws of the
Nevada Revised Statutes as they may be interpreted
by the courts."
General Counsel Klasic stated that a "balancing test"
would be implemented by the courts. This is a judge-
made rule that determines what to do when an open
record request is made. It considers the interest of
the public in knowing the affairs of their public
institutions vs. privacy rights. Upon the court's
decision the institution would be directed to release
or withhold the document.
General Counsel Klasic offered the following scenario
to help explain the proposed language. When a hearing
under Chapter 6 has been declared, particularly a
termination hearing, a special Hearing Officer is ap-
pointed from outside the System. The special Hearing
Officer makes findings of fact, conclusions of law and
a decision, which is contained in a report. The re-
port is forwarded to the President of the institution.
Then a faculty panel, after it hears the report of the
Hearing Officer, and assuming that the decision is
guilty, decides the penalty or makes a recommendation
for the penalty. This is also sent to the President
of the institution. General Counsel Klasic proposed
that the report of the Hearing Officer, together with
the decision of the President, would then be revealed,
not the investigative files or raw data.
General Counsel Klasic stated that the Faculty Senates
are generally in agreement with the proposed changes,
although UNR's and TMCC's Faculty Senates oppose this
particular section. He stated that Nevada's Open
Meeting Law does not pertain to these cases, and the
hearing panels are not subject to the Open Meeting
Law because they report to a single person, the Pres-
ident (single bodies, such as the President, are not
subject to the Open Meeting Law). In addition, min-
utes are not prepared at these hearings, and therefore
are not subject to the Open Meeting Law.
General Counsel Klasic stated that a question was
raised about revealing the names of the complainants
who have made sexual harassment complaints. Again, he
reminded the Board that the proposed policy is not
limited to sexual harassment cases, but all discipline
matters. There is much case law that would allow
UCCSN to use the balancing test and to delete the
names of complainants who have complained of sexual
harassment so as to protect their privacy.
General Counsel Klasic stated that the remainder of the
proposed changes are essentially time procedures, either
to speed up the process or put time limits on the selection
of committees, the business of exercising peremptory deci-
sions, and, finally, the hearing.
The Campus Advisory Committees on Status of Women have been
contacted with regard to the proposed policy, and General
Counsel Klasic had only received comments from the TMCC
and UNR Committees. He met with each Committee and dis-
cussed their concerns. He stated to the Committees that
he would report to the Board about their discussions and
conclusions. He reported on the following:
1) Both Committees agreed not to delay any further the
action in adopting these proposed changes.
2) Both Committees were concerned about the necessity to
have somebody monitor sexual harassment. General
Counsel has indicated that the Affirmative Action
Officer should already be handling this issue. The
concern is that there are 8 or 9 Affirmative Action
Officers throughout our System, with different priori-
ties, staffs, budgeting requirements, and training.
It was determined that the Affirmative Action Officers
must be told that they must have a more active role
in monitoring these matters. General Counsel Klasic
agreed, but did not feel it necessary to change the
UCCSN Code to that effect. He suggested that the
Campus Advisory Committees on Status of Women be
directed, with their Presidents, to address the issue
to the Affirmative Action Officer. Or, alternatively,
assuming the Board establishes a permanent Status of
Women Committee, the Campus Advisory Committees could
approach the Board's Committees with a proposed direc-
tive to take care of the issue.
It was pointed out that it would be very difficult for
Affirmative Action Officers to monitor a sexual har-
assment problem in a hearing if, in fact, they were
excluded from the hearing. The UCCSN Code, at this
time, does exclude everybody from a hearing except
the parties, their attorneys and the witnesses as they
come into the hearing. General Counsel Klasic indicat-
ed that he would be prepared to provide a UCCSN Code
change at a later meeting that will allow the Affirma-
tive Action Officers to attend the hearings on all
discrimination matters (not just sexual harassment,
which is a form of sexual discrimination, but all
discrimination matters; i. e., race, sex, national
origin, religion, etc.).
3) Both Committees believed that a person who has been
victimized by sexual harassment ought to have an
independent advisor or advocate to support him
throughout the process. Upon clarification by both
the UNR and TMCC Committees, it was explained that
this "support" person be an employee that is essen-
tially funded by UCCSN. The person(s) ought to be
chosen by the Campus Advisory Status of Women Com-
mittees and trained by the Committees. The "support"
person would be present in the hearing, if only to of-
fer a hand, a friendly face, and console the victim.
The UNR Committee indicated that it did not anticipate
that this person would participate in the hearing nor
be present during the entire hearing, but be present
during the time the victim was present.
General Counsel Klasic indicated that he would be
prepared to provide a UCCSN Code change at a later
meeting.
4) The TMCC Committee was concerned that there ought to
be an option to monitoring matters, such as sexual
harassment complaints, apart from the Affirmative
Action Officer. This person may be the one, rather
than the Affirmative Action Officer, to perform this
monitoring. General Counsel Klasic suggested that
this could be worked out either individually or from
a policy directive from the Status of Women Committee.
5) Both the UNR and TMCC Committees wanted to clarify that
the hearings were administrative in character and not
subject to the rules of evidence. General Counsel
Klasic explained that the UCCSN Code currently provides
that they are administrative in character and that the
rules of evidence are not the rules UCCSN follows in
this particular matter. In addition, he explained that
these matters are not totally under UCCSN's control,
because the greater the property right at stake, the
greater the formality that is necessary. General
Counsel Klasic offered his services in educating the
panel members.
6) The UNR and TMCC Committees wanted to clarify the time
limits for bringing charges. General Counsel Klasic
stated that there is not a statute of limitations for
bringing charges under Chapter 6 of the UCCSN Code.
However, with respect to the Affirmative Action pro-
cedures, Title 4, Chapter 8, Section 9, Affirmative
Action Grievance Procedures, there is a 180-day statute
of limitations. It is the responsibility of the Af-
firmative Action Officers to educate the public as to
this particular matter.
Mr. Klaich stated that he felt a very short statute of
limitations on sexual harassment complaints is eminent-
ly fair to the complainant and to the accused, so that
each of them will have a contemporaneous opportunity
close to the incident to have it resolved. Dr. Derby
stated that the reason for this is that there has been
an environment and climate that has made it difficult
for a victim to come forth. Mr. Klaich stated that by
delaying the reporting of such incidents it does not
help anyone involved. Delay neither makes it easier
nor makes the fact of anything more or less provable.
He felt that the ad hoc Committee on Status of Women
has taken a very strong and powerful position on this
issue and has said that sexual harassment is absolutely
impermissible conduct with UCCSN. So he believes that
there is reason to move more into the mainstream of
reporting and disposition of these cases and that a
short statute of limitations is clearly within the
mainstream.
UNR Faculty Senate Chairman Ellen Pillard stated that
there are some states which have gone to removing the
statute of limitations altogether for sexual abuse
allegations as it relates to children. Although
UCCSN's situation is different, we are not talking
about "children, but we are talking about students",
who in many instances may not be as captive as children
are, but are also not fully empowered adults in many
instances. In addition, employment situations that are
inequitable which have mitigated against the employee
filing the sexual harassment complaints is a real con-
cern and issue. Historically, although it may be
ideal to have a short statute of limitations and
prompt disposition of complaints, the reality is that
there is a long history in which people have been un-
willing to make complaints and Ms. Pillard felt that
a short statute of limitations mitigates against chang-
ing the history.
7) The UNR and TMCC Committees both questioned the pro-
tection rights of the complainant against retaliation
for bringing a complaint forward and General Counsel
Klasic indicated that he would be able to provide a
UCCSN Code change at a later meeting.
8) The UNR and TMCC Committees both requested clarifica-
tion on whether the Handbook procedures or the UCCSN
Code were applicable in regard to these matters. Gen-
eral Counsel Klasic indicated that this issue was
addressed in his opening remarks.
9) The UNR Committee indicated that there ought to be a
victim's rights provision, but agreed that UCCSN would
allow the Affirmative Action Officers to monitor these
cases and if an advocate or advisor is provided as a
support person that would automatically take care of
this issue.
10) The UNR Committee felt that UCCSN ought to suspend
without pay the accused during the preliminary trans-
mission of the complaint from the Affirmative Action
Officer to the President for disciplinary action.
General Counsel Klasic indicated that under the U. S.
Supreme Court ruling of "Cleveland Board of Education
vs. Loudermill", the UCCSN cannot suspend without pay.
There needs to be a due process hearing held first.
The TMCC Committee indicated that perhaps the suspen-
sion should be with pay. General Counsel Klasic re-
ferred to a couple of court cases that indicated that
in addition to a property right there is also a "liber-
ty" interest, that when a person's reputation has been
challenged by an accusation of wrongdoing which could
affect that person's future employment, action cannot
be taken without a due process hearing. The proposed
language states that the accused would be placed on
administrative leave with pay for which a due process
hearing would be held within 10 days.
11) The UNR and TMCC Committees were concerned with the
provision regarding the separation of the victim and
the accused. General Counsel Klasic stated that the
proposed language is flexible in this regard. It
may be proper, in some instances, to remove the victim
from the situation and then again, it may be proper,
in other instances, to remove the accused.
12) The UNR Committee was concerned about the formal res-
olutions or settlements that are reached. General
Counsel Klasic indicated that settlements are very
vital and important in reaching conclusions. It is
his policy to always consult with the victims and to
always take their wishes into consideration in reach-
ing the conclusions. If any settlement is reached
that is unacceptable to the victim, that victim always
has the right to file a complaint with the Nevada Equal
Rights Commission, the Office of Federal Contract Com-
pliance Programs of the Department of Labor and the
Office of Civil Rights, without expense to that victim
to have an investigation.
General Counsel Klasic recommended that the proposed changes
to the Handbook, Title 4, Chapter 8, Section 9, and to the
UCCSN Code, Chapter 6 be adopted.
Dr. Derby agreed with General Counsel Klasic that these
changes needed to be made, but felt that there is still
much revision to the UCCSN Code that needs to be done. She
invited members of the Campus Advisory Committees to address
the Board at this time with their concerns.
Dr. Helen Jones, Director of Women's Center at UNR, suggest-
ed that students should be included in a meaningful way in
this process, such as on the hearing committees. She also
suggested that the Board direct each institution to develop
a sexual harassment policy that sets out what that institu-
tion is going to do that it can be responsive to the local
needs of those institutions and conform to the process. She
felt that by having a support person for the victim to help
explain what is actually happening would remedy the power
imbalance that students and staff often feel. She mentioned
that Chapter 6 is a limited provision, but under Chapter 8
it could address a pattern and practice of harassment over
a period of time and often will make for a stronger case.
She suggested that both procedures be explained to the com-
plainant and that an amendment be made to the proposed lan-
guage that the decision is made in consultation with the
complainant. She suggested that a presumption statement be
written into the proposed language that would relay that
every effort will be made to transfer the accused person
and that the complainant is not always the person who is
transferred.
Dr. Jackie Kirkland, Dean of Student Services at TMCC,
stated TMCC's Committees felt very strongly about the sup-
port person that would be assigned to the complainant and,
in addition, would have the additional responsibilities of
helping to monitor the case, such as timelines, following
procedures, advising the complainant of the progress of the
case and ensuring that the process continues, if necessary.
She suggested that an independent advisor be selected from
a pool of faculty (6-8 persons) who would be trained and
selected by the Committee on Status of Women. The complain-
ant or the Committee would select this independent person
and would not involve any additional funds. She felt that
there is a need for education on the Campus as to what the
procedures are and what rights and responsibilities and/or
limits either the victim or the accused may have in the
case. She suggested that they may be the responsibility
of the independent advisor. Dr. Kirkland stated that TMCC
is very concerned about the providing of protection for the
victim from further harassment or retaliation in the very
early stages of the complaint process, particulary with
repsect to students. She recommended that the Board direct
the Campuses to develop and formalize a plan for dealing
with sexual harassment to include some of the points that
have been discussed as well as to specify that this pool of
internal independent advisors be educated and be brought
along to work with the victims and that students be made
aware of the process on the Campuses. It should be publi-
cized through posters or catalogs or whatever means neces-
sary. She also recommended that the changes that have
been proposed be adopted at this Board meeting and that
the additional changes be dealt with at either the June or
the August Board meeting.
UNR Faculty Senate Chairman Ellen Pillard commended General
Counsel Klasic for the proposed changes in the UCCSN Code,
Chapter 6, and for the input he had enabled the faculties
to lend to this process. She stated that it was her under-
standing that all of the Faculty Senates have supported UNR
in its concern about the records provision, Section 6.15,
in which the Hearing Officer's report is made public. Since
this section of the UCCSN Code deals with a variety of
grievances, not just sexual harassment, many of the griev-
ances are not matters of public interest. She felt there
are a lot of ways that risk personal and confidential in-
formation if names are simply deleted from the report. For
example, if there are only three faculty members in a De-
partment, one could possibly be identified even if the name
were deleted from the report. She suggested that in regard
to the release of statistics as it relates to sexual harass-
ment, she wanted it clarifed that it is not "summary" sta-
tistics. The public, UNR and the Board of Regents has a
right to know summary information about the number of
complaints, resolution of complaints that clearly protects
the confidentiality of those involved, however, is it nec-
essary to identify the disciplined person? She urged the
Board of Regents to pass the proposed language, with the
exception of Section 6.15 until better language is develop-
ed.
General Counsel Klasic agreed with Mrs. Pillard that by
just releasing the document one could do a great deal of
damage to a person who is found not guilty. He explained
that the released document would include the decision and
the report explaining as to why this person was found not
guilty.
General Counsel Klasic stated that the proposed language
represents almost word for word the current case law on
open records in the State of Nevada relative to closed
investigations. It would be irresponsible to ignore this
language.
Mr. Klaich requested General Counsel Klasic to report back
to the Board on the issue of statutes of limitations as to
what other agencies have utilized. He felt that the stat-
utes of limitations are not necessarily to protect anyone
or to disadvantage anyone, but rather to interject a timely
resolution to the problems.
Mr. Klaich requested further explanation of the Open Meet-
ing Law and the Open Record Law, and General Counsel Klasic
explained that the Open Meeting Law contains a specific
statute which states that when a meeting is held, a public
body is required to write minutes. In a personnel ses-
sion, the statute then specifically states those written
minutes are confidential. This statute protects the per-
sons involved. However, there is no protection under the
Open Record Law. It states that all public records are
open, but it does not define a public record. This is
where the determination by the "judge-made laws" comes into
play. The courts have determined that while the investiga-
tion is in progress, privacy is maintained, but once the
investigation is over and there is no danger to anyone of
criminal prosecution, then it becomes open.
President Gwaltney questioned the legal liability of the
support person that attends the hearing committees and
would these persons be protected? He also questioned
whether UCCSN has any responsibility to defend those in-
dividuals who conduct themselves in a fashion unbecoming
to established procedure, such as leaking information on
the case. General Counsel Klasic responded that as long as
the support person is behaving in the scope of public duty
and is acting properly at the hearing, he is protected. He
stated that the support person is privileged from suit as
long as he is actively paid, and protected from suit in the
sense that he will be defended by the institution. However,
if a person violates the policy and releases a document
that ought not to be released, that person will not be de-
fended and will probably be disciplined.
Dr. Derby questioned whether action on Section 6.1 could be
delayed after the May 20 Legislative Study Committee meet-
ing which General Counsel Klasic previously mentioned would
be held to discuss the Open Record Law. General Counsel
Klasic responded that it probably wouldn't do UCCSN any
good to wait. He felt that the proposed language is the
law as it stands right now and he would advise releasing
documents right now because of the Nevada law, despite
the current UCCSN Code policy.
It was General Counsel Klasic's understanding that the
Nevada Press Association is amenable to the concept that
personnel records are to be confidential.
Chairman Sparks entered the meeting.
Dr. Derby questioned Section 6.12.3 which refers to the ap-
pointment of the Special Hearing Committee with 15 faculty
members, both academic faculty and administrative faculty,
and whether there is a guarantee of balance between the
constituents on that Committee. General Counsel Klasic
responded that sometimes it is difficult to find people
who would be willing to serve on the Committee, and that
once the 15-25 persons are located it is the responsibility
of the Faculty Senates to determine whether it is a bal-
anced group or not. Then the 9 persons are selected random-
ly. These 9 persons go before the defendant's attorney and
complainant's attorney, who then exercise the peremptory
challenges of selecting two apiece, making it a 5 person
Hearing Committee. He once again reminded the Board that
this Committee not only addresses sexual harassment cases,
but all disciplinary cases.
President Crowley indicated that UNR's Bylaws will be forth-
coming to the Board to increase the size of the panel and
that the Bylaws already provide for a balance between ad-
ministrative faculty and academic faculty.
General Counsel Klasic stated that he had a difficult time
devising different panels for different disciplinary cases.
Dr. Derby suggested that language be developed that under-
scores the importance of a balanced Committee as a matter
of guidance. Dr. Derby clarified that when she refers to
"balance", she means gender balance. Dr. Derby stated that
a gender balance is particularly important to sexual har-
assment cases. It was also suggested that in such cases
as student sexual harassment, students should serve on the
panel as well.
Dr. Derby stressed the importance of the Affirmative Action
Officer and staff to be sensitive and supportive to victims
who come forth with complaints, although their primary
responsibility is institutional compliance. Mr. Klaich felt
that maybe the Affirmative Action Officers are not trained
to emotionally assist victims, and that if an ombudsman or
support person is selected UCCSN should be very careful who
it selects and how they are trained before liability is
questioned for that person and the institution. He is not
in favor of giving the Affirmative Action Officer additional
responsibilities. General Counsel Klastic indicated that he
would be able to provide a UCCSN Code change at a later
meeting.
Dr. Derby felt that the action taken at this meeting and at
the June Board of Regents' meeting regarding the UCCSN Code
changes is not an end to these issues, but will be an on-
going process. She felt that some of the issues may be
brought before the Status of Women Committee, working in
conjunction with the Campus committees.
Mr. Klaich moved approval of the amendments to the UCCSN
Code, Chapter 6, Rules and Disciplinary Procedures for
Members of the University Community, and to the Regents'
Handbook, Title 4, Chapter 8, Section 9, Grievance Proce-
dures as Related to Equal Opportunity. Mrs. Gallagher
seconded.
Mr. Klaich requested General Counsel Klasic to prepare a
list of refinements to the changes on the basis of the ques-
tions raised by the various Campus committees and Board
members that were brought forth during the discussion.
USA President Debi Green asked the Board to reconsider the
approval of UCCSN Code 6.12.3 (a) and (c) by removing the
proposed language requiring that if a student is involved
in the action that a student representative be on the
Hearing Committee, or if a graduate student is involved,
a graduate student representative. General Counsel Klasic
stated that he had difficulty with the suggestion for the
following reasons:
1) It was complained that in a previous matter, a facul-
ty member could not be judged by a panel of his peers
if a student was on the Committee, and
2) In structuring the panel so as to guarantee that a
student serve on the Committee, that would cause dif-
ficulty when the "balancing" of the Committee, as dis-
cussed earlier. (If peremptories are exercised there
is a change that the student may be exluded from serv-
ing on the Committee.)
General Counsel Klasic also stated that there is no guaran-
tee that UCCSN can get a student to serve because of con-
flicts with class schedules. Faculty will be released from
their duties to serve on the Committee, but with students
it is difficult because of class exams or class schedule
conflicts or Summer break. The motive behind these pro-
posed language changes is to speed the process, and by
including a student it may in fact delay the process.
ASTM President Charlie Covington strongly felt that a stu-
dent should serve on the Hearing Committee. The protection
of the student and faculty is equal.
Dr. Derby stated that she felt very strongly about the stu-
dent involved when his/her fate is involved in the outcome
of the hearing. She requested that this issue be addressed
at the next meeting.
Mrs. Berkley voted no on the above motion. Motion carried.
Chairman Sparks resumed the gavel; Dr. Hammargren left the meet-
ing.
14. Approved Handbook Change, Program Review, UCCSN
In April, 1992, the Board of Regents' Academic Affairs Com-
mittee recommended an amendment to the Handbook, Title 4,
Chapter 14, Section 3, Program Review, to provide for an
annual report to the Board on existing program review and
allow for additional program reviews as the Board of Re-
gents deems necessary, as contained in Ref. D, filed in
the Regents' Office.
Mr. Klaich moved approval of the Handbook change regarding
Program Review. Mrs. Gallagher seconded. Motion carried.
15. Approved Handbook Additions, Articulation, UCCSN
Approved additions to the Handbook, Title 4, Chapter 14,
Sections 14.2, 18.3, 15.2 and 11.2, as contained in Ref.
E, filed with the permanent minutes.
At the Board of Regents' Workshop on Articulation held in
April 1992, 4 recommendations were proposed by the UCCSN
Articulation Board to enhance the transfer process and
increase communication among all Campuses.
Mrs. Gallagher moved approval of the Handbook additions
regarding Articulation. Mrs. Berkley seconded. Motion
carried.
16. Approved Spring 1992 Enrollment Report
Mrs. Karen Steinberg, Acting Vice Chancellor for Academic
Affairs, presented the official Spring 1992 and 1991-92
net annual enrollment reports, as contained in Ref. F,
filed with the permanent minutes.
The Spring enrollment report shows the UCCSN continuing to
grow faster than it had been forecasted. For full-time
equivalent (FTE) enrollment, the UCCSN grew 10.6% from
Spring, 1991 to Spring, 1992. She noted that the percent-
age increase in FTE enrollments is greater than the per-
centage increase in headcount enrollments, which indicates
more full-time students are enrolling at UCCSN. This is
becoming a "trend" for UCCSN. She cautioned the Board that
the headcount enrollment format is still in a transition
stage and that her office is still in the process of re-
trieving greater detail from the Campuses. Mrs. Steinberg
reviewed the following State supported headcount and FTE
enrollment figures for each institution as follows:
Spring 1991 Spring 1992 Change
UNR FTE 7,843 8,283 5.6%
Headcount 10,841 10,853 0.1%
UNLV FTE 11,273 12,097 7.3%
Headcount 16,859 18,039 7.0%
CCSN FTE 5,183 6,525 25.9%
Headcount 14,453 16,336 13.0%
NNCC FTE 788 912 15.7%
Headcount 2,461 2,965 20.5%
TMCC FTE 3,256 3,622 11.2%
Headcount 8,717 9,413 8.0%
WNCC FTE 1,683 1,770 5.2%
Headcount 5,203 4,929 -5.3%
Vice Chancellor Sparks stated that there has been a 9.5%
increase over the budgeted enrollment figures and estimated
that some 800 more students than were budgeted entered the
UCCSN institutions.
Dr. Hammargren returned to the meeting.
Upon questioning, Vice Chancellor Sparks indicated that
UCCSN is approximately 40 faculty positions added and ap-
proximately $2 million short this fiscal year. The added
student fees from the increased enrollments will be help-
ful in meeting these discrepancies.
Dr. Eardley moved approval of the Spring 1992 Enrollment
Report. Dr. Derby seconded. Motion carried.
17. Approved Handbook Addition, Anti-Drug Policy
Approved an addition to the Handbook, Title 4, Chapter 3,
Section 27, Anti-Drug Policy, as contained in Ref. H, with
amendments to remove the word "alcohol" throughout the docu-
ment, and to replace the word "must" with the word "may" in
paragraph 7.
Mr. Klaich moved approval of the Anti-Drug Policy as amend-
ed. Mrs. Gallagher seconded.
UNR Faculty Senate Chairman Ellen Pillard stated that UNR
has its own policy which is much different than the pro-
posed language. She felt that the proposed language was
punitive and that paragraph 7 language weighted on pun-
ishment.
General Counsel Klasic stated that the proposed language
was adopted from the U. S. Congress and Nevada Legislature's
language, and emphasized that every State agency must have
a stated policy; it is required by law.
Discussion was held regarding the word "alcohol", and Mrs.
Gallagher stated that, to her knowledge, drug treatment
centers consider alcohol as a drug, and it is the most
often abused drug in our society.
Mrs. Steinberg informed the Board that in order to obtain
Federal grants, it is absolutely necessary to have this
policy in place.
Motion carried.
Mrs. Gallagher left the meeting.
18. Approved Land Acquisition/Land Use Plan
Regent Hammargren requested the Board to reconsider its
motion on providing funds for a developmental plan for BLM
land and to expand the motion to include acquisition of the
property. The land in question is now owned by Clark County
and is located at the end of the runway of the Las Vegas
Airport.
Dr. Hammargren stated that several developmental corpora-
tions in Las Vegas have contributed to this project: The
Collins Brothers firm; ESI Engineering Inc.; Americana
Realty; Jones, Jones, Close & Brown; and attorney David
Crosby. He stated that Mr. Crosby has been coordinating
the petitioning process with the County.
The law firm of Robert A. Fielden, Inc. has been hired by
the State Public Works Board to provide information on
UNLV's comprehensive master plan. The process undertaken
included interviews with the faculty, students, neighbor-
hood citizens. The physical master plan will, of course,
be driven by the academic master plan.
Dr. Hammargren stated, "In all probability, based on exist-
ing land use ratios and the size of current buildings an-
ticipated for FTE's of beyond 20,000 might have to be
served through satellite Campuses." He suggested that
such programs as research, continuing education and con-
ference centers be located at peripheral sites. At this
time, UNLV is in a land-lock situation. The University
Park concept would help relieve this situation. Dr. Hammar-
gren envisions the University Park as a research park, with
the Spruce Goose Museum as an attraction.
The need to address the Spruce Goose acquisition is that
the application to Disney and the Aero Club of California
must be in by May 15, 1992, which is a separate issue
from the land acquisition.
Dr. Hammargren stated that an additional piece of property
(56 acres) for an aerospace museum has been donated to
UCCSN. He mentioned that he has received numerous letters
of support for the aerospace museum to be located in the
Las Vegas area.
Chairman Sparks questioned where the designated future
parking would be developed in relation to the future Uni-
versity buildings for classroom and research, and Dr.
Hammargren stated that there are 118 acres (half of the
present size of UNLV Campus) and that he was just showing
the various options available.
Chairman Sparks questioned if this land has been cleared for
human habitation, and Dr. Hammargren responded that there
were legal problems that were holding up the petitioning
process - a civil war script stating that the land belonged
to someone else, but this has just been settled in the
Federal courts. In regard to the noise level, the project-
ed site for classroom buildings is less noisy than the
UNLV Campus. He clarified that the proposed land was never
at the end of a airport runway. If the Spruce Goose is
not obtained by UCCSN, the land would be designated for
other University development projects.
President Maxson stated that UNLV is very interested in
obtaining additional land. If UCCSN could obtain the land
without the commitment to produce the Spruce Goose within
a period of time and without any financial commitment, UNLV
would be very interested in the land. He suggested that
UNLV pursue this land, without financial obligations, and
make request for educational purposes.
Dr. Hammargren stated that the U. S. Congress is deliberat-
ing about establishing a Smithsonian West, and he suggested
that this land could be a possible site.
Chancellor Dawson requested clarification on the motion for
providing funds for the development plan. He requested that
the Board of Regents' money be available to spend in pur-
suing the acquisition of this property, not just for a land
use development plan. The previous motion was very restric-
tive to just the development of the land use portion.
Chairman Sparks indicated that the Board of Regents have put
forward $10,000 and UNLV has put forward $10,000 for pur-
suing the land.
Dr. Hammargren moved approval of the money already allocated
be used for acquisition of the land with UNLV to pursue the
land acquisition. Mrs. Berkley seconded. Motion carried.
General Counsel Klasic mentioned the statement in a letter
from Robert L. Mc Caffery, filed in the Regents' Office
about pursuing the land and getting Howard Hughes Flying
Boat (Spruce Goose). General Counsel Klasic did not in-
terpret the above motion as authorizing the Board to obtain
the Spruce Goose. It is his understanding that the motion
is for using the money to acquire the land for whatever
proper purpose this Board will later determine. Chairman
Sparks confirmed, but added that UNLV will seek acquisition
of the land on behalf of the Board of Regents.
The open meeting recessed at 4:07 P.M. and reconvened at 8:15
A.M. Friday, May 15, 1992, with all Regents present except
Regents Berkley, Foley and Whitley.
19. Approved an Easement, CCSN
Approved a Grant of Easement for drainage purposes on CCSN
Henderson Campus. General Counsel Klasic recommends ap-
proval upon review of documents.
Mr. Klaich moved approval of the easement for drainage pur-
poses on CCSN Henderson Campus. Mrs. Gallagher seconded.
Motion carried.
20. Information Only: Discussion of Regent Committees
The Board discussed a possible Bylaw change regarding the
Status of Women Committee. General Counsel Klasic presented
three alternative drafts, filed in the Regents' Office, and
recommended that the Board accept Alternative 2. He ex-
plained that Alternative 2 represented the spirit and intent
of Article VI of the Bylaws to restrict standing committees
to Board membership only, while also allowing a format by
which non-Regents could advise the Regents on important
issues. It is similar to the Board's Research Affairs Com-
mittee's structure.
General Counsel Klasic explained that he did not favor
Alternate 3 because of the possibility that non-Regents,
acting together or in alliance with a minority of Regents
on the Committee, could outvote a majority of Regents on
the Committee, thereby imposing their views on both the
Committee, and ultimately, the rest of the Board.
Standing committees are committees of the Board and it
would be improper, in General Counsel's view, for non-
Regents to dictate the Board's agenda.
General Counsel Klasic commented that Alternative 1 repre-
sents the committee structure used for all the Board's
standing committees, except the Research Affairs Committee.
Mr. Klaich moved approval of Alternative 3 as drafted by
General Counsel Klasic, with the numbers "8" in the first
blank and "4" in the second blank. Dr. Derby seconded.
Motion carried.
General Counsel Klasic requested that this approval be con-
sidered as the first reading of a change to the Regents'
Bylaws. His request was granted.
21. Information Only: Discussion on Foundations
General Counsel Klasic reported on UCCSN/Foundation rela-
tions. His report is filed with the permanent minutes.
He stated that there have been several questions raised
in the media about the relationships between the institu-
tions of the UCCSN and their supporting foundations. As
a result of these questions, he gave opinions on the fol-
lowing, which can be reviewed in further detail in his
report, filed with the permanent minutes:
1) The effect of the Ethics in Government Law on the
operations of, and the relationships between, the
UCCSN institutions and the foundations.
2) Whether the foundations were private corporations or
public agencies subject to the laws generally govern-
ing the operations of public agencies.
At the suggestion of Chairman Sparks, General Counsel Klasic
called a meeting of UCCSN institutional Presidents, finan-
cial officers and foundation contacts for the purpose of
receiving input in order to enable him to reach some con-
clusions leading to an opinion on these matters. This
meeting was held at the System Administration Office in
Reno on May 11, 1992.
General Counsel Klasic reached the following conclusions:
1) The foundations should not be making direct payment of
funds to support UCCSN programs or employees. To pre-
vent violations of the Ethics in Government Law and to
ensure the Board's constitutional control over the
administration of the State University, foundation
funds should be donated to the Board of Regents and
the Board of Regents should be responsible for the
disbursement of the funds in accordance with the con-
ditions of the gift.
2) The foundations are private, non-profit corporations
and as such are not subject to the requirments of the
Open Record Law, the Open Meeting Law, the State person-
nel laws, the State and University purchasing regula-
tions or any of the other laws and regulations appli-
cable to government agencies. At the same time, how-
ever, it might be the better part of wisdom for the
foundations to voluntarily disclose nonsensitive
records pertaining to their support of UCCSN programs
and employees.
Dr. Eardley stated that the reason why UCCSN has establish-
ed institutional foundations is to generate private money
for Campus projects that normally would not receive State
funding. He questioned who was the ultimate authority
over the foundations, whether it's the Regents, Presidents
or others. He stated that he is very concerned about the
reporting methods in regard to actual gifts or pledged
gifts. He requested a standard reporting system for all
foundations within the System. He stated that if the
institutions are spending donations without the acceptance
of the gift by the Board of Regents, it is going against
the System's policy. Foundations should not be spending
money that has not been formally given to the institutions
and accepted by the Board of Regents. In addition, he
felt that there should be a more standardized method for
allocating perquisites to Presidents of the institutions,
such as housing allowance, car allowance, etc.
Mr. Klaich complimented General Counsel Klasic for a superb
job relating to the foundations which resulted in an ex-
tremely positive outcome. He felt that this was a posi-
tive discussion in a negative context. He stated, "I
believe we're having this discussion because of a mean-
spirited attempt to discredit Bob Maxson by somehow im-
plying that he was profiting by this foundation or re-
ceiving funds that had not been approved by the Board,
which is absolutely untrue." He resented the implications
to the contrary and further stated, "I think there has been
a cloud cast over these foundations that somehow they are
clandestine organizations that are pulling the strings of
the University, which I categorically reject." The reason
for foundations to be in existence is to harness the enor-
mous energies of the communities that the System institu-
tions serve to better those institutions, which they have
served well and have had enormous success. He felt that
the Board should be thanking these individuals publicly
rather than casting aspersions at what they are doing. He
extended his thanks to all the foundation officers for
doing exactly what the Board has instructed them to per-
form, which is to make our institutions better for our
students to learn. He recommended approval of General
Counsel's recommendations as contained in the report.
Chairman Sparks recommended that an ad hoc committee be
established to create a specific reporting form that is
universally used among all of the foundations in order
to receive funds. She noted that a list of gifts is
presented to the Board of Regents' at each meeting for
its acceptance.
Mrs. Gallagher also resented the implications that have
been directed to the Presidents and the foundations, be-
cause they have performed exemplary work. "It is incumbent
upon this Board of Regents to be very supportive of the
foundations and the people who work for the foundations."
She commended General Counsel Klasic for an excellent re-
port. She recommended that the recommendations which
General Counsel Klasic proposed should be approved by the
Board. She stated that she resented the amount of time
that the Board has spent on these issues when there are
so many other very important issues to address.
Chairman Sparks directed the Chancellor to inform the
foundations of the recommendations proposed by General
Counsel Klasic and to establish an ad hoc committee to
address the foundation issues. General Counsel Klasic
stated that he expected full cooperation from the founda-
tions in regard to his recommendations.
Dr. Eardley stated that he is very supportive of the
foundations and that anything he said was for clarifica-
tion purposes, not to attack the foundations.
22. Approved Handbook Addition, Bylaws, UNLV
Approved an addition to the Handbook, Title 5, Chapter 6,
Section 4.6, Faculty Senate Committees Authorized at UNLV,
as contained in Ref. J, filed in the Regents' Office.
Dr. Eardley moved approval of the Handbook addition regard-
ing UNLV Bylaws. Mrs. Gallagher seconded. Motion carried.
23. Approving Naming of Building, UNLV
Approved the naming of the College of Health Sciences build-
ing the Rod Lee Bigelow Health Sciences building at UNLV.
President Maxson stated that Mr. Bigelow has donated a $1.5
million grant to the UNLV Foundation for this purpose.
Dr. Eardley moved approval of the naming of the College of
Health Sciences building the Rod Lee Bigelow Health Sciences
building at UNLV. Mrs. Gallagher seconded. Motion carried.
24. Approved Lease of Land, Sports/Medicine Facility, UNR
Approved the leasing of land for a Sports/Medicine Facility
at UNR. The Reno Orthopedic Clinic (ROC) is currently
negotiating with the University of Nevada, Reno to build
a Sports/Medicine Facility on the Campus. This Facility
would work in cooperation with the University academic
Departments and would build and remodel some facilities for
the Athletic Department. This Facility would be located
on the University property which would be leased to the
clinic for $1 a year. After a period of time, the building
would become the property of the University. The initial
proposal for the Sports/Medicine Facility was distributed
and is filed in the Regents' Office.
Chancellor Dawson requested permission to seek approval
for the project from the Interim Finance Committee and the
State Public Works Board.
Mr. Buz Moore, Physical Therapist, spoke in opposition to
the project. He felt that UNR would lose a great deal,
such as referral for profit, which would mean that local
physicians would not gain from patient referrals.
He further stated that he was a great fan of UNR and would
seek help from the Wolf Pack Boosters to aid UNR in build-
ing a new training center. He further stated that rehabil-
itation is a multi-dollar business and if the Board should
allow this transaction to transpire, the ROC would take
business away from other physical therapists in the area.
Mr. John Sandi, ROC's attorney, stated that his client,
ROC, has been involved with student athletes over the years
and has funded a trainer to work with high school person-
nel. He felt that it would be in the best interest of the
University to work with ROC in light of the institution
moving into NCAA's Division I category. He clarified that
ROC will not be the sole provider, but that other physicians
and physical therapists can be included.
Upon questioning, Vice President Ashok Dhingra explained
that 1/2 of the proposed building would be used by the UNR
Athletic Department and the other half (7000-8000 sq. ft.)
would be utilized as a medical clinic and office space,
x-ray facilities, and neck/spine/extremity rehabilitation
facility.
Mrs. Gallagher questioned whether the student athletes
would have a right to choose his/her own physical thera-
pists, and Mr. Sandi responded that there will be no ex-
clusive contract for ROC and that Dr. Jerry Dales, Team
Physician, has stated that he will cooperative with ROC.
Mr. Sandi also stated that UNR will have ultimate authority.
Dr. Eardley posed the following questions:
1) With the Board of Regents being a public body, can
other agencies be involved, other than ROC, to lease
land from a public institution?
2) What is referral for profit? And how does it correspond
with State laws regarding monopolies?
3) Who initiated this proposal?
Vice President Dhingra responded to questions 1 and 3 by
stating that, yes it has been done before and approved by
this Board and the Governor; and it was a joint effort by
the two entities, although it was initiated by ROC.
Mr. Moore explained that referral for profit is when a
physician refers a patient to another office and receives
a profit. He does not condone referral for profit.
President Crowley stated that this project is a high
priority for the UNR Athletic Department.
It was explained that the student athlete who is injured
is covered under an insurance policy provided by UNR.
President Crowley stated that before any steps were taken,
concerns were raised how Dr. Jerry Dales, Team Physician,
would react. Athletic Director Chris Ault spoke with Dr.
Dales and the project was explained to him and he was told
that UNR very strongly wishes to continue working with Dr.
Dales. President Crowley stated that if Dr. Dales disagreed
with the arrangement, he would be inclined to reject the
proposal, however, Dr. Dales did agree. (Dr. Dales volun-
teers his time to the team.)
After a lengthy discussion, Dr. Derby stated that she felt
she needed more information before voting on this issue.
She felt that it was a good will of community, but it had
created much tension and she did not feel comfortable with
making a decision at this time.
Mr. Klaich stated that he, too, was concerned by the com-
ments made regarding this issue. He informed the Board that
he is good friends with both Mr. Moore and Dr. Dales, but
noted that only one person has spoken against this proposal.
Mr. Klaich stated that he has spoken directly to Dr. Dales
who did not speak against this project. It was noted that
ROC will work with the University School of Medicine to
plan a Sports/Medicine Program; the Physical Education
Department to establish a joint Bio-Mechanical Program;
and the College of Human and Community Sciences to enhance
the Physical Therapy Program. Mr. Klaich stated that this
was a tremendous step forward for the Sports Program at
UNR, and he strongly supported the proposal submitted by
ROC and urged the Board to approve the proposal.
President Crowley stated that the final documentation will
be reviewed by General Counsel Klasic and signed by the
Chancellor, if approved.
Mr. Klaich moved approval of the proposed Sports/Medicine
Facility at UNR. Mrs. Berkley seconded.
Dr. Hammargren questioned what the actual land was worth
and what the actual investment would be on this property.
He requested a sounder proposal be brought before this
Board before approval.
President Crowley stated that the Board has entrusted the
Chancellor to make sound business practice decisions. And
he assured the Board that ROC will pay its share of expens-
es, such as utilities, etc.
Dr. Rick Mullins, orthopedic physician, stated that he has
worked with Dr. Dales. He stated that he was concerned
about this proposal. UNR has a good medical group working
with them now, and he would hate to see it jeopardized. He
indicated to the Board that Dr. Dales is concerned about
this project, although there is no other medical group the
size of ROC that could make such an offer to UNR.
Mr. Sandi reiterated that the documentation would be non-
exclusive, that Dr. Dales will remain as UNR's Team Physi-
cian, that the student athlete could choose his/her own
physician, that there would not be time arrangement, that
this is a charitable gesture on the part of ROC, and that
it will be a totally ethical proposal.
Chairman Sparks asked President Crowley if this issue could
be delayed until further information is received, and Pres-
ident Crowley stated that he is aware of the concerns pro-
posed by the community, but did not feel it was necessary
to survey every physician in the area regarding this issue.
He believes that this proposal is in the best interest of
UNR and would hate to miss this opportunity.
It was clarified that the student athlete would probably
not have the opportunity to choose a physician during an
emergency, but would be able to choose a physician for
rehabilitation and minor injuries. President Crowley
responded to a question that UNLV does have a MS in Physi-
cal Therapy and it was his understanding that it has
received over 300 applications for admission to the pro-
gram, with several applications from the northern part of
the State. UNR has a Bachelor of Science Program and is
hopeful that someday UNR can establish a Masters Program
in Physical Therapy.
Mrs. Berkley stated that she would vote in favor of the
proposal because it demonstrates a new and creative way
to build new buildings on the Campuses. It is a marriage
between the private sector and the University.
Chairman Sparks requested that the final documentation be
brought before the Board for its approval. General Counsel
Klasic stated that UNR will have the option to purchase the
building after 50 years and if it is unable to do so, then
ROC can lease it back to UNR.
Regents Derby and Hammargren voted no. Motion carried.
Chairman Sparks indicated that Chancellor Dawson would
report back to the Board after he meets with the Interim
Finance Committee.
25. Approved Concept of Waiver of Out-of-State Tuition, UNLV
Approved in concept to waive out-of-state tuition for
Navajo students on the Navajo reservation who are recom-
mended by Mr. Peterson Zah, President of the Navajo Nation,
and meet UNLV admission requirements.
General Counsel Klasic did not recommend approval. To adopt
this policy would open the University of Nevada to a reverse
discrimination suit. Under the U. S. Supreme Count's de-
cisions, preferences can be shown to minority groups only
when there has been a history of discrimination by the
institutions against the minority group in question. Pref-
erence in that case is needed to offset the discrimination.
The discrimination must be specific. General Counsel
Klasic is unaware of any history of specific discrimination
by the University of Nevada against Navajos. General Coun-
sel Klasic also stated for the record that the agreement
is addressed to the "System" and suggested that input from
other institutions is necessary.
President Maxson explained that the Navajo Nation is 250,000
strong and it has made similar arrangements with other Col-
leges around the country. He projected that approximately
10-15 students per year would take advantage of this pro-
posal. It would provide a cultural diversity on the Campus
and felt it was a positive matter, although he deferred his
remarks to General Counsel Klasic's legal concerns.
General Counsel Klasic recommended denial of the request.
He mentioned that Nevada does not even have a Navajo Reser-
vation. He cautioned the Board that if all factors are
equal, then the minority background could be reviewed, but
it does not meet the requirements. He stated that there
were other ways to approach this issue.
Dr. Hammargren questioned whether there were any scholarship
funds that could be designated to the Navajo Nation, and it
was stated that there was a "Native American Scholarship"
fund.
President Peterson Zah thanked the Board for the opportunity
to address this issue. He explained that at one time the
Navajo people did not believe in formal education, but now
believes it is a way to achieve as a nation and to survive.
There are government agreements in Arizona, Utah and New
Mexico that waive out-of-state tuition. The Navajo tribe
does not have the facilities to send its young people to
learn higher education. In 1983 there were approximately
1133 Navajo students, now there are approximately 5000-6000
students.
Mrs. Berkley stated that she was in support of the request
and asked General Counsel Klasic if he had researched this
issue with Universities in other states, and he responded
that both New Mexico and Utah have the Navajo Nation within
their states and that Colorado advised not to proceed with
this request. Although there are U. S./Navajo Nation agree-
ments, the U. S. Supreme Court has its own standards - they
can and the stated government can't. In regard to WICHE,
it is a reciprocal agreement. He stated that this request
is not the way to handle this issue and he offered to report
back to the Board with other alternatives.
Mr. Klaich requested that the item be tabled and that Gen-
eral Counsel Klasic, Chairman Sparks and President Maxson
discuss this issue further and report back to the Board.
Mrs. Gallagher moved to approve in concept the waiving of
out-of-state tuition for Navajo students living on the
Navajo Reservation who are recommended by Mr. Peterson Zah,
President of the Navajo Nation, and meet UNLV admission
requirements, and that Chancellor Dawson and General Counsel
Klasic explore different ways to accomplish this request
with the assistance of Affirmative Action Officers. Mrs.
Berkley seconded. Motion carried.
Mrs. Gallagher and Mr. Klaich left the meeting.
26. Approved Naming of Building, School of Medicine
Approved the naming of the new Speech Pathology and Student
Health Service building, to be opened this Summer, in honor
of Nell J. Redfield.
The Nell J. Redfield Foundation has been a generous donor
to the School, and to the University in general. The most
recent gift, $400,000, will permit UNR to have a fully
functioning building at the time of opening.
Dr. Eardley moved approval of the naming of the new Speech
Pathology and Student Health Service building in honor of
Nell J. Redfield. Dr. Hammargren seconded. Motion carried.
27. Approved Reciprocal Exchange Program Waivers, UNR
Approved to waive the tuition and fees for the Samantha
Smith Undergraduate Exchange Program participants. The
University participates in the congressionally authorized
Samantha Smith Undergraduate Exchange Program. In recent
competition, four University of Nevada students were
selected as scholarship recipients and are spending the
Spring 1992 semester in Czechoslovakia or Poland. The
host Universities in these countries are providing free
tuition and room and board for UNR students.
As part of the Samantha Smith Undergraduate Exchange Pro-
gram, UNR is hosting four Eastern European students, two
for the Spring 1992 semester and two in the Fall 1992
semester. UNR's obligations under the program are to
provide free tuition and fees and room and board for these
students. Room and board arrangements for these students
have been made by the University. It is now requested
that UNR be authorized to waive the tuition and fees for
these exchange program participants.
Dr. Eardley moved approval of the reciprocal exchange pro-
gram waivers at UNR for the Samantha Smith Undergraduate
Exchange Program participants. Mrs. Berkley seconded.
Motion carried.
Mrs. Gallagher and Mr. Klaich returned to the meeting.
28. Approved Handbook Changes, Student Health, Fee, UNLV
Approved Handbook changes, Title 4, Chapter 17, Section 10,
Student Fees at UNLV, as outlined below. The students have
approved this increase by vote of the student body.
Section 10. Student Fees
Student Health and Accident Insurance
UNR UNLV
Optional
Annual Premium
Student Only 228 384
Spouse Only NA 622
Spouse, Pregnancy Added NA 1,244
Children Only NA 592
Student and Spouse 1,429 1,878
Student and Child 576 936
Student, Spouse and Child 1,777 NA
Each Additional Child 348 NA
Student and Children NA 1,248
Student and Family NA 2,790
Summer Session
Student Only 62 32
Spouse Only NA NA
Children Only NA NA
Student and Spouse 388 158
Student and Child 156 78
Student, Spouse and Child 482 NA
Each Additional Child 94 NA
Student and Children NA 104
Student and Family NA 232
Health Service Fee 50 20*
*$20 per semester to be assessed to all undergraduate and
graduate, full- and part-time students. Exceptions in-
clude special, continuing education and Senior Citizens
Program students. Undergraduate special students may
receive services by paying a $20 voluntary fee on the
first visit to the Center. In the event a student drops
all courses, refunds will be given in accordance with
established policy.
Mrs. Gallagher moved approval of the Handbook change regard-
ing Student Health Fees at UNLV. Mrs. Berkley seconded.
President Maxson stated that the proposed change has caused
much debate on the UNLV Campus. He explained that the UNLV
Student Health Service traditionally holds the student fees
at the lowest level possible, but health costs are rising
and it is necessary to raise the fees, but only those that
are absolutely necessary. President Maxson noted that this
issue has come before him during the last 8 years, but he
had always felt inclined to keep student fees at its mini-
mum; however, the current student body has approved the
fee increase. This issue was brought before the students
twice; once to assess a $20 per semester fee, but the ballot
was in error, so it went before the student body again with
the correction and was approved by the student body. Pres-
ident Maxson stated that upon approval by the student body,
he recommends the fee increase.
Throughout this process, an issue has arisen in regard to
using non-State funds to publicize the election. Presi-
dent Maxson explained that funds were used to prepare a
brochure throughout the Campus. The student body govern-
ment considers this as a campagin for student health fee
increase and, in addition, felt that the Student Health
Center acted on behalf of the institution's Administration,
which should not have been involved with the election proc-
ess.
CSUN President Joel Kostman stated that the student govern-
ment remained neutral in the election process and relayed
that there was a 2:1 margin in support of this increase.
However, it is his understanding that the Student Health
Center obtained funds from the Vice President of Student
Services for distribution of the information brochure.
Students have expressed their displeasure in this action,
therefore he felt it was necessary to bring this issue
before the Board of Regents.
Mr. Ken Tomory of the UNLV Student Health Advisory Commit-
tee stated that a survey was distributed to 1362 students
with the following results:
837 students would pay the increase
520 students would not pay the increase
Chairman Sparks relinquished the gavel to Vice Chairman Eardley.
Mr. Tomory stated that the intent of the Student Health
Center was not to lobby the students, but to relay infor-
mation to them so they could vote responsibly.
Mrs. Berkley stated that student health services are very
important, especially with the new Residence Halls coming
on line. She has received the brochure and felt it was
very informative. She stated that she did not enjoy rais-
ing student fees, but felt that the health services are
warranted on the UNLV Campus.
Motion carried.
29. Approved Handbook Change, Salary Schedules, UNLV
Approved a Handbook change, Title 4, Chapter 3, Salary
Schedules, UNLV, as contained in Ref. D, filed in the
Regents' Office.
Mr. Klaich moved approval of the Handbook change regarding
Salary Schedules at UNLV. Mrs. Gallagher seconded. Motion
carried.
30. Approved Handbook Change, Bylaws and Faculty Manual, DRI
Approved the Bylaws and Personnel Manual for the Faculty of
the Desert Research Institute, as contained in Ref. L and
Ref. M, respectively, filed in the Regents' Office.
These documents have been brought forward by the DRI Faculty
Senate and have its approval.
Mr. Klaich moved approval of the Bylaws and Personnel Manual
for the Faculty at DRI. Mrs. Gallagher seconded. Motion
carried.
31. Approved Handbook Changes, Early Retirement, DRI
Approved changes to the Handbook, Title 4, Chapter 3, Sec-
tion 24, University and Community College System of Nevada
Early Retirement Incentive Program, as contained in Ref. N,
filed in the Regents' Office.
Mr. Klaich moved approval of the Handbook changes regarding
UCCSN Early Retirement Incentive Program at DRI. Mrs.
Gallagher seconded. Motion carried.
32. Emergency Item: Building Plans, TMCC
Chancellor Dawson requested approval of building drawing
plans for TMCC. He explained that the Board had approved
the project, but the plans had not been submitted for
approval and the State Public Works Board could not allow
the project to continue.
Mrs. Gallagher moved approval to accept the emergency
item regarding building drawing plans for TMCC. Mrs.
Berkley seconded. Motion carried.
33. Approved Building Plans, TMCC
Approved building drawing plans for TMCC as presented.
Mrs. Gallagher moved approval of the building drawing plans
for TMCC. Mrs. Berkley seconded. Motion carried.
34. Information Only: Recommendation for Promotion or Assign-
ment to Rank, UNR
The following recommendation for promotion or assignment to
rank has been forwarded for Board consideration. This is
an information item only, with Board action scheduled for
the June 25-26, 1992 meeting.
A. University of Nevada, Reno - President Crowley recom-
mends the following promotion, effective July 1, 1992:
Robert T. King to Professor, Oral History Program,
College of Arts and Science
35. Information Only: Recommendations for Award to Tenure, UNR
and UNLV
The following recommendations for award to tenure has been
forwarded for Board consideration. This is an information
item only, with Board action scheduled for the June 25-26,
1992 meeting.
A. University of Nevada, Reno - President Crowley recom-
mends the following award to tenure, effective July 1,
1992, to the following:
Fritz Grupe, Accounting/Computer Information Systems,
Business Administration
James H. Trexler, Geology, School of Mines
B. University of Nevada, Las Vegas - President Maxson
recommends the following award to tenure, effective
July 1, 1992, to the following:
Maria G. Ramirez, ICS, College of Education
Chancellor Dawson introduced Mrs. Virginia Pickering who will
be graduating from the University of Nevada, Reno with a Bache-
lor of Arts and Science. She is the mother of staff member,
Lesie Jacques, who is also receiving her Bachelor of Arts degree.
The meeting adjourned at 11:00 A.M.
Mary Lou Moser
Secretary of the Board
05-14-1992
Return to the meeting index for 1992.
Return to the Board of Regents' Minutes Home Page.
© Copyright 1999 by the UCCSN Board of Regents. All rights reserved.
University and Community College System of Nevada.
|
