January 3-4, 1992
BOARD OF REGENTS
UNIVERSITY AND COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM OF NEVADA
January 3, 1992
The Board of Regents met on the above date in the Computing
Center Video rooms at the University of Nevada, Reno and the
University of Nevada, Las Vegas, for an emergency meeting.
Members present: Mrs. Carolyn M. Sparks, Chairman (Las Vegas)
Mrs. Shelley Berkley (Las Vegas)
Dr. James Eardley (Reno)
Mr. Joseph M. Foley (Las Vegas)
Mrs. Dorothy S. Gallagher (Elko)
Dr. Lonnie Hammargren (Las Vegas)
Mr. Daniel J. Klaich (Reno)
Mrs. June F. Whitley (Las Vegas)
Members absent: Dr. Jill Derby
Others present: Chancellor Mark H Dawson (Reno)
President Anthony Calabro, WNCC (Reno)
President Joseph Crowley, UNR (Reno)
President John Gwaltney, TMCC (Reno)
President Paul Meacham, CCSN (Las Vegas)
President Robert Maxson, UNLV (Las Vegas)
President Ron Remington, NNCC (Elko)
President Jim Taranik, DRI (Reno)
Mr. Donald Klasic, General Counsel
Mr. Ron Sparks, Vice Chancellor
Mrs. Karen Steinberg, Acting Vice Chancellor
Ms. Mary Lou Moser, Secretary
Chairman Sparks called the emergency video meeting to order at
1:35 P.M., stating the purpose of the emergency meeting was due
to the January 2, 1992 Nevada Supreme Court decision in SNEA vs.
Daines. The Governor has stated that he would announce his budg-
et cuts on Wednesday, January 9, 1992. The Board of Regents was
informed that if it wished to submit its input to the Governor
before he announced his plans, the System's input had to be
submitted by no later than Tuesday, January 7, 1992.
This unforeseen event and the need to take immediate action be-
fore January 7, 1992 required an emergency meeting of the Board
of Regents to discuss this matter and to take action if neces-
sary. The two University Presidents were unavailable to meet
with the Board from Sunday, January 5, 1992 through Thursday,
January 9, 1992 because of attendance at the NCAA Convention.
General Counsel Klasic stated that the Attorney General's Office
had been contacted and recognized the emergency status in holding
Chairman Sparks made the following opening remarks:
"We have called this emergency meeting of the Board of Regents
because the timing of the Governor's budget does not permit us
to review these plans at our regular meeting next Thursday and
"This Board takes its responsibility for the running of higher
education in Nevada very seriously. We realize we are an autono-
mous body, but we still share in the overall budget of the State.
Our responsibility is to the taxpaying citizens and to the stu-
dents who attend our institutions as well as the faculty and
staff who run them.
"Due to the severe impact the budget problems of the State will
have on higher education, we feel it is our fiscal responsibility
to be sure the Campuses have the best and most beneficial use of
the funds provided. We have spent the last 10 years recovering
from the previous disaster. We now face losing all we have
worked to replace and build in the System and the tremendous
strides we have made to accommodate the growth in Nevada.
"We will review the plans as submitted by the Campuses and de-
cide whether to forward the plans with the bottom-line figures
to the Governor for inclusion in his budget plan. At our meet-
ing next week we will be able to fine-tune the specifics within
the plans and follow up on discussions that arise at today's
"This will be an open meeting and we will have input from all
1. Discussion of Governor's Budget Reduction Request
The Governor has requested the Board of Regents to submit an
8.5% and a 12% budget reduction plan. The Presidents have
submitted these budget reduction plans, filed in the Office
of the Regents.
Chancellor Dawson stated that the Campus reduction plans
have been submitted and the 12% reduction plan indicates
a very severe scenario. The 12% reduction plan would re-
quire the System to maintain the hiring freeze which would
save $5.8 million over the biennium. At an average salary
of $40,000 there would be 144 positions affected by way of
layoffs. An additional workforce reduction of $6 million
would be realized by laying off 151 classified positions.
It is proposed that a one-time student fee increase be im-
plemented of $10 per credit hour at the Universities and
$5 per credit hour at the Community Colleges. By collect-
ing this surcharge from students, the System would generate
$6.8 million, which would save 170 positions.
Chancellor Dawson stated that 321 positions would be term-
inated (160 faculty positions). Chancellor Dawson indicated
that $8.7 million would be returned by eliminating the minor
repair and improvements request and $2.3 million from the
merit funding pool.
He strongly encouraged the Board of Regents to request a
special session of the Legislature if the 12% reduction
plan was to be implemented. The Legislature would then be
able to address the issues of additional revenue, equitable
treatment, and rescinding the cost-of-living salary in-
Mr. Foley stated that he agreed with Chancellor Dawson's
remarks. Although it is a matter of opinion, Mr. Foley
stated that he felt if the Legislature approved new taxes
beyond the employer tax, which was approved, then the State
would not be in this position. For years the citizens of
Nevada have supported higher education, in fact a poll in-
dicated that 90% affirmed a desire for quality higher edu-
cation in Nevada. No other State agency has that claim
from the people of Nevada. He stated that he felt the Gov-
ernor now insists on removing the option of raising taxes
to support higher education. He indicated that if the 12%
reduction plan is approved by the Governor, then the Board
of Regents should demand a special session of the Legisla-
Dr. Eardley requested the Presidents to address the reduc-
tion plans as they pertain to their own institutions.
President Crowley stated that UNR's 1991-93 budget increased
by 9.6% the first year of the biennium and 6% the second
year. This budget increase was the smallest throughout the
UCCSN institutions. UNR has established a Planning Commit-
tee which consists of 25 faculty, Administrators and stu-
dents. This Committee has discussed different possibilities
in handling the reductions. He indicated that each possi-
bility affects another area; i. e., if enrollment caps are
instituted, it will affect the quality of faculty due to the
layoffs. The more faculty that are laid off, the more in-
crease in class size and an increased workload for the re-
maining faculty. If layoffs occur, the faculty population
would be at 370, which was the faculty population in 1986-
87. He indicated that it took six years to achieve the
faculty/student ratio of 21:1. If a student fee surcharge
was implemented, it would retain the quality of the faculty;
without the surcharge, it would decrease student enrollment.
President Crowley suggested the following alternatives:
1) Reduce programs. This may possibly eliminate an entire
College and would only save $2 million without the stu-
dent fee surcharge. This process is addressed in the
UCCSN Code, but takes a very long time to accomplish.
2) Eliminate positions of non-tenured faculty. At present,
the market for faculty has been tremendous because
Nevada's higher education system is very attractive.
The System would lose diversity with the women and
minority faculties if non-tenured positions were elim-
If layoffs are mandated at UNR, President Crowley stated
that accreditation would be affected. He is hopeful that
the State's economy is only a temporary situation. However,
it would set the System back by 10-12 years if the 12% re-
duction plan were implemented.
He suggested that the Board of Regents provide the bottom
figures of the 8.5% and 12% reduction plans, but to stress
the importance of the set-back.
Mrs. Whitley stated that by capping enrollments it would
deprive the current student body and would be a dramatic
effect on the Freshman students. UCCSN may lose these stu-
dents to other schools around the country.
Mrs. Berkley entered the meeting.
Mrs. Gallagher questioned whether the Board should declare
a financial exigency. General Counsel Klasic stated that
it was a contractual right of the students who are enrolled,
although the catalog language states that UCCSN may declare
financial exigency. He stated that the Board of Regents
may choose to perform immediate cuts, although the UCCSN
Code is flexible in dealing with emergency situations.
Dr. Eardley stated that the Governor will be declaring budg-
et reductions throughout the State of Nevada, and it is the
Board's responsibility to relay pertinent information to
the Governor prior to his official statement. Then, after
the Governor's statement has been made, the Presidents
should report back to the Board with their final plans for
implementation. He requested additional information re-
garding student fees and the effect of non-teaching faculty
President Crowley stated that if the 12% reduction plan is
approved and a student fee surcharge is not implemented,
UNR would have to lay off 170 employees; 55 faculty, 39
Administrators, and 76 classified. If the 8.5% reduction
plan is approved without a student fee surcharge, 26
employees would be laid off; 9 faculty, 6 Administrators,
and 11 classified.
Chairman Sparks indicated that the Board of Regents needed
to determine whether UCCSN would submit the 8.5% and 12%
reduction plans to the Governor, or let the Governor make
his own decision. Then at the regularly scheduled Board
of Regents' meeting, the Campus detail information would be
Dr. Hammargren entered the meeting.
Mr. Klaich stated that the Board should forward the request-
ed information to the Governor and should not deny the Gov-
ernor any valuable input regarding the reduction plans, but
that the Board of Regents should not be bound to the specif-
ics in the plans submitted by the Campuses. He felt that
the Board of Regents should spend more time on this subject.
He suggested that a 6% reduction plan also be submitted to
the Governor. He stated that he was concerned about UCCSN
acquiring more than the share of the State's problem. UCCSN
received approximately 20% of the State's General Fund, but
is being requested to submit 40% of the State's overall
deficit. He felt the Board should request the Governor to
call a special session of the Legislature if higher educa-
tion has to contribute a disproportionate share to the
Mr. Klaich stated that years of work may be washed away and
it will take years to regain, it is very depressing and
destroys everything we have worked for. He stated that he
was concerned about the student fee surcharge. He felt that
the students have received fee increases during the past two
years and that every option should be considered before im-
plementing a student fee increase. He suggested that the
Campuses look at increasing teaching faculty workloads and
suspending tenure points, such as research and community
Upon questioning, Vice Chancellor Sparks indicated that the
reduction plan requests are to be absorbed over the bien-
Mr. Klaich moved that the Board of Regents forward to the
Governor the budget reduction plans of 6%, 8.5% and 12% as
submitted by the Campus Presidents. Further, that the
Board of Regents indicate that, if a reduction is required
in the UCCSN budget, that the Board of Regents offer the
plans as illustrative only of the devastating impact of such
cuts on UCCSN and reserve the authority to allocate cuts
mandated by the Governor as the Board of Regents see fit.
And if the proportion of cuts allocated by the Governor to
UCCSN is greater than our share of the General Fund, the
Board of Regents call for the Governor to convene a special
session of the Legislature to address this budget crisis.
Dr. Eardley seconded.
President Maxson stated that UNLV's situation is very sim-
ilar to UNR. They have spent a number of hours in addres-
sing this issue. He stated that the University is "people
driven"; however, if UNLV was requested to make dramatic
reductions, it would have to lay off employees. By limit-
ing enrollment the part-time faculty would also have to be
released. He stated that students are attending UNLV, but
with the current hiring freeze and without filling the va-
cant positions it will pose a problem in teaching these
President Maxson stated that he had mixed feelings about the
student fee surcharge. Several UNLV students are working to
support their education and if an additional surcharge is
required of these students for the sake of employing teach-
ing faculty, it then becomes an unending cycle of events.
And if the operating budgets are reduced, Campus safety,
Library operations, and other vital support functions to
students would be affected.
President Meacham stated that there is no such thing as a
temporary faculty/student ratio change. It has taken UCCSN
several years to achieve the current ratio and if it were
to be revised, UCCSN would probably have to live with it
for many years to come. He informed the Board that CCSN
has been very conservative and has devised a savings plan
that has been in effect since the first indication of re-
duction plans in August, 1991. CCSN has projected a 3%
enrollment increase, but in actuality CCSN has realized a
15% increase. CCSN has two new buildings coming on line
within the next year and they must be operational by the
Fall semester. He stated that CCSN should not be penalized
for being conservative and starting earlier than the other
Campuses in cost savings.
Mrs. Whitley questioned the impact on scholarships. Presi-
dent Maxson responded that UNLV will be discontinuing
scholarship funding if the 6%, 8.5% or 12% reduction plan
is implemented. He stated that at 12% UNLV would lose stu-
dents and would lose $2 million in anticipated tuition in
these reductions. He stated that new scholarship funding
would be used for next year, which amounts to $288,000.
Mrs. Berkley stated that scholarships are so important to
the institutions and this should be made known to the Gov-
ernor and the people in Nevada.
President Gwaltney stated that it should be made known that
if any plan is submitted, it is not cast in concrete and
that the Board of Regents, in conjunction with its Presi-
dents, be allowed to make adjustments to the plans. He
encouraged the Board to strongly suggest the 6% reduction
plan to the Governor. He did not support the student fee
surcharge. He felt the surcharge would only be a contri-
bution to the institution if implemented. TMCC would have
to lay off 30-37 salaried positions, of which 15 would be
classified if the 12% reduction plan is accepted. In addi-
tion, TMCC would have to discontinue 35-40 classes and would
have to turn away 800-900 students. He stated that the TMCC
Child Care facility is scheduled to open in the Fall, but if
the 12% reduction plan is implemented, there will not be any
equipment or furniture, and although it would open, it would
be a disappointment to all who are associated with the fa-
President Calabro agreed with his fellow colleagues and add-
ed that any reduction plan would affect the accreditation
efforts at WNCC, Library facilities, safety and security,
and academic programs that may have to be eliminated. He
mentioned that historically, during recession periods, peo-
ple attend Community Colleges to enhance their job perform-
ance or to learn a different profession in order to obtain
a more viable occupation.
President Taranik stated that DRI receives less than 1% of
the total System budget from the State's General Fund. The
reduction plans would have significant impact to DRI's Li-
braries and Campus improvements. If 12% reduction is imple-
mented, DRI would have to lay off personnel. Although DRI
employs 355, there are only 25 State funded positions, which
are management positions. At 12% it would be an absolute
disaster for the System to slide backwards to the 1980
status and would be devastating to Campus facilities.
President Remington stated that 8.5% reduction would be a
burden to NNCC, but a 12% reduction would be a catastrophe.
The 12% reduction plan impacts the merit pool. The Com-
munity Colleges have worked for several years to establish
a salary schedule for Community Colleges and this schedule
would be destroyed at a 12% reduction. It would be devas-
tating to lose the support funding which the System has
fought hard to obtain.
General Counsel Klasic explained the process in which a
financial exigency could be declared.
Upon request, Mr. Klaich divided the original motion into
Mr. Klaich moved that the Board of Regents forward to the
Governor the budget reduction plans of 6%, 8.5% and 12% as
submitted by the Campus Presidents. Further, that the Board
of Regents indicate that, if a reduction is required in the
UCCSN budget, the Board of Regents offer the plans as il-
lustrative only of the devastating impact of such cuts on
UCCSN and reserve the authority to allocate cuts mandated
by the Governor as the Board of Regents see fit. Dr.
Mr. Klaich moved that if the proportion of cuts allocated
by the Governor to UCCSN is greater than our share of the
General Fund, the Board of Regents call for the Governor
to convene a special session of the Legislature to address
this budget crises. Dr. Eardley seconded.
Mrs. Gallagher stated that she was very aware that this is
not a temporary situation and concurred with Mr. Klaich
in regard to submitting the three reduction plans with the
caveat that the Board of regents would be able to change
allocations within the Governor's reduction plan. She felt
that the people of Nevada did not want any new taxes and
encouraged the Presidents to look for avenues that would
retain quality at the institutions. There is not much time
to instigate these two-year reductions within 18 months.
The plans must be expedited after the Governor makes his
Mr. Klaich repeated the two motions and a roll call vote
was taken on the first motion:
Motion carried on roll call vote:
Aye: Regents Berkley, Eardley, Gallagher, Hammargren,
Klaich, Whitley and Sparks
Nay: Regent Foley
Absent: Regent Derby
President Crowley stated that there is no way to reduce
the budgets without pain. The UCCSN has spent years in
building the System and the reductions will impact the re-
search institutions, economic development programs, and
faculty recruitment efforts. He related a scenario in
which student wages may have to be reduced which would
effect employment of students, who in turn would have, in
some way, given the wages back to the economy. Again, this
causes a cyclical reaction. It will not be easy to devise
an overall balance. He felt that it was the Board of Re-
gents' responsibility to submit to the Governor the reduc-
tion plans along wth scenarios which have been discussed
during this meeting.
Chairman Sparks clarified that the Governor would be mak-
ing his public address on Wednesday, January 8, 1992 and
the Board of Regents will be meeting on Thursday and Friday,
January 9-10, 1992. At that time, the Presidents would be
able to address the specific details of the reduction plan
announced by the Governor.
Mr. Foley left the meeting.
Dr. Jim Richardson, UNR faculty, stated that he strongly
supported the Regents' motions. A special session should
be called if UCCSN is requested to support the Fair Share.
There needs to be equity between all State agencies. It
was his understanding that K-12 is exempted from the re-
duction plans. UCCSN should not have to contribute to the
General Fund if the K-12 is not contributing. K-12 pro-
jections are down, whereas, the UCCSN projections have
been increased. He suggested that the Board support a 6%
reduction plan. He cautioned the Board in requesting a
special session, in that the 4% cost-of-living increase
may be discussed and retracted. He suggested that the stu-
dents be addressed when discussing the student fee sur-
charge. The Board of Regents should know what their opin-
ion is if a surcharge is implemented to save 170 faculty
positions. The surcharge should be implemented as a last
resort before laying off personnel.
Mr. Klaich stated that he has expressed publicly and pri-
vately his opinion on the student fee for surcharge. He
clarified that a balance should be held throughout the
System, where possible.
Dr. Eardley suggested that the Presidents review the facul-
ty workload and work ethic. He felt that Administrators
should be teaching classes and requested the Presidents
to address this possibility when devising the reduction
plans. Dr. Eardley stated that he was surprised that this
possibility was not discussed in the plans submitted by
President Meacham, Remington and Calabro stated that they
have all addressed this possibility. President Calabro
stated that it may cause a loss in access and productivity.
Mr. Klaich explained the reasoning for the second motion.
If there is a $120 million deficit in Nevada and higher
education's share is 20% of the State's budget, $23.5 mil-
lion would be our fair share if at 6% reduction, but at
12% reduction our share would be $48 million and he felt
that it is worth fighting for, although he is aware that
it would be a serious risk to undertake.
Mrs. Berkley stated that she had serious reservations about
the motion. The Governor is certainly aware of the impli-
cations, and the Legislature is hesitant in that they feel
the citizens of Nevada want to decrease the business tax.
She stated that the reduction plans are devastating and
that UCCSN does not want to lose more than what it already
has. Going into a special session may jeopardize UCCSN's
Mr. Klaich clarified that he was not fighting with the
Governor and stated for the record that the Governor has
been placed in an exceptionally difficult position. UCCSN
has a problem with K-12 in that they are not contributing
their fair share. He felt that the Legislature would be
able to clear up the ambiguity this has caused.
Mrs. Berkley stated that the Nevada tax structure is a prob-
lem and the only way to remedy this situation is to estab-
lish a stable tax structure. She felt that UCCSN should
know the Legislature's stance before calling a special
Dr. Hammargren suggested that the second motion be tabled
until the regularly scheduled meeting of the Board on Jan-
uary 9-10 after the Governor's recommendation has been
Mrs. Gallagher agreed with Mrs. Berkley's concerns. She is
aware that the Governor does not want to call a special
session of the Legislature. If the business tax is repealed
then what would replace that income for the State? She felt
that a special session could be dangerous for UCCSN and a-
greed to table the motion until next week.
Mr. Hammargren moved to table the motion until the regularly
scheduled meeting of the Board of Regents on January 9-10,
1992. Mrs. Whitley seconded.
Motion carried on roll call vote:
Aye: Regents Berkley, Eardley, Gallagher, Hammargren,
Whitley and Sparks
Nay: Regent Klaich
Absent: Regents Derby and Foley
Chairman Sparks thanked everyone for their time and bring-
ing questions before the Board of Regents. The discussion
will be continued at the next meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 3:40 P.M.
Mary Lou Moser
Secretary of the Board