UCCSN Board of Regents' Meeting Minutes
January 3-4, 1992


Pages 62-72



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

this meeting.

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

interested parties."

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

being eliminated.

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

two parts.

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.

Eardley seconded.

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

the Presidents.

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

budget plans.

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