UCCSN Board of Regents' Meeting Minutes
January 6-7, 1994


Pages 1-53



January 6, 1994

The Board of Regents met on January 6, 1994 in the Pine Auditori-

um, Jot Travis Union, University of Nevada, Reno.

Members present: Dr. James Eardley, Chairman

Mrs. Shelley Berkley

Dr. Jill Derby

Mrs. Dorothy S. Gallagher

Mr. Madison Graves, II

Dr. Lonnie Hammargren

Mr. Daniel J. Klaich

Mrs. Nancy Price

Mrs. Carolyn M. Sparks

Mrs. June F. Whitley

Members absent: Mr. Joseph M. Foley

Also present were Faculty Senate Chairmen Alan Balboni (CCSN),

Chris Gaub (Unit), Scott Hawkins (NNCC), Dan Mc Clure (TMCC),

Alan Mc Kay (DRI), Mark Melrose (WNCC), Marsha Read (UNR) and

James Stiver (UNLV), and Student Association Officers.

Chairman Eardley called the meeting to order at 11:15 A.M.

Thursday, January 6, 1994, with all Regents present except

Regent Foley.

1. Introductions

CSUN President Joel Kostman introduced CSUN Senator David


UNR Vice President Bob Hoover introduced Marsha Read, Vice

Chairman of the UNR Faculty Senate.

2. Chairman's Report

Chairman Eardley thanked all those who have expressed con-

cern for his wife, Barbara, and reported that she is re-

covering well.

Chairman Eardley requested that annual reports on salaries

for Deans and above be made at an open meeting of the Board

of Regents.

3. New Business

Chairman Eardley stated that the Board of Regents official-

ly recognizes outstanding faculty and students at its regu-

larly scheduled meetings. He felt that classified employees

and support staff should also be formally recognized. Mrs.

Gallagher agreed that this was appropriate. Chairman

Eardley requested the Presidents to consider this proposal

and directed Interim Chancellor Richardson to work with

the Presidents on this area of improved recognition.

4. Information Only: Outstanding Faculty Recognition

At the request of the Board of Regents, each Faculty Senate

Chairman reported on the outstanding faculty achievement

for the institution. Ref. B is filed in the Regents' Of-


University of Nevada, Reno

Glen W. Atkinson

Western Nevada Community College

Mildred Wade

Northern Nevada Community College

Bret J. Murphy

Carl Cook

5. Information Only: Outstanding Student Recognition

At the request of the Board of Regents, each Student Govern-

ment Officer reported on the outstanding student achievement

from the institution. Ref. C is filed in the Regents' Of-


University of Nevada, Reno

Lyn Carlson

Northern Nevada Community College

Don Unruh

6. Information Only: Public Comment

No public comment was made.

7. Approved Sabbatical Leaves, 1994-95

Nevada Revised Statutes and Board of Regents' policy provide

for the total number of sabbatical leaves which may be

awarded each year.

Utilizing the criteria followed in previous years, the max-

imum available leaves for 1994-95 for:

UNR = 13

UNLV = 15

DRI = 3

CCSN = 7

NNCC = 1

TMCC = 3

WNCC = 2

Unit = 1

A. University of Nevada, Reno - President Crowley recom-

mended the sabbatical leaves available to UNR be awarded

to the following:

Richard Davies, History, Spring 1995

Jerry Downing, Couns & Educ Pay, Fall 1994

Sami Fadali, Electrical Engineering, Fall 1994

Maurice Fuerstenau, Chem/Met Engineering, Spring 1995

Fritz Grupe, Acct/CIS, Academic Year

Gary Hausladen, Geography, Academic Year

Alexander Kumjian, Mathematics, Academic Year

Glen Miller, Environ & Resource Sciences, Fall 1994

Pierre Mousset-Jones, Mining Engineering, Academic Year

David Seibert, Speech & Theatre, Spring 1995

James Trexler, Geoological Sciences, Spring 1995

Robert Turner, Mechanical Engineering, Academic Year

Judith Whitenack, Foreign Language & Lit, Academic Year


Richard Wirtz, Mechanical Engineering, Fall 1994

Jim Owen, Speech & Theatre, Spring 1995

Ref. E for summary of proposed projects is filed in the

Regents' Office.

B. University of Nevada, Las Vegas

President Maxson recommended the sabbatical leaves

available to UNLV be awarded to the following:

Frederick Bachhuber, Geoscience, Academic Year

Catherine G. Bellver, Foreign Languages, Spring 1995

Barbara G. Brents, Sociology, Academic Year

Robert Collins, Marketing, Spring 1995

David R. Dickens, Sociology, Spring 1995

Maurice Finocchiaro, Philosophy, Fall 1994

Christopher Hudgins, English, Fall 1994 or Spring 1995

Russell T. Hurlburt, Psychology, Academic Year

Lawrence Klein, History, Academic Year

Alan N. Miller, Management, Fall 1994

Gerald D. Newbould, Finance, Academic Year

Pasha Rafat, Art, Spring 1995

Stephen N. Rowland, Geoscience, Academic Year

Timothy E. Wallin, Geoscience, Academic Year

Charles Whitney, English, Academic Year


Randall G. Shelden, Criminal Justice, Spring 1995

Cathie Kelly, Art, Academic Year

William M. Thompson, Public Administration, Spring 1995

Ref. F for summary of proposed projects is filed in

the Regents' Office.

C. Desert Research Institute - President Taranik recommend-

ed the sabbatical leaves available to DRI be awarded to

the following:

Randolph D. Borys, Atmos Science Center, Academic Year

Judith C. Chow, Energy & Environ Eng Center, Spring 1995

Ref. G for summary of proposed projects is filed in the

Regents' Office.

D. Community College of Southern Nevada - President Meacham

recommended the sabbatical leaves available to CCSN be

awarded to the following:

Raymond Eade, Marketing & Resorts, Fall 1994

James Pomeroy, Ind'l Service Technology, Spring 1995

Frazine Jasper, LPN, Academic Year

Carolyn Anderson-Stewart, Hlth Info Tech, Academic Year

Sandra Goodwin, Office Admin, Spring 1995

Alyce Gray, Child Develop, Spring 1995

Ref. H for summary of proposed projects is filed in

the Regents' Office.

E. Northern Nevada Community College - President Remington

recommended the sabbatical leaves available to NNCC be

awarded to the following:

Cyndee Mc Mullen, English, Academic Year

Ref. I for summary of proposed projects is filed in

the Regents' Office.

F. Truckee Meadows Community College - President Gwaltney

recommended the sabbatical leaves available to TMCC

be awarded to the following:

Bill Baines, Communications Division, Academic Year

Barbara Chism, Prof Business Studies, Academic Year

John Septien, Applied Industrial Tech, Fall 1994

Ref. J for summary of proposed projects is filed in

the Regents' Office.

G. Western Nevada Community College - President Calabro

recommended the sabbatical leaves available to WNCC be

awarded to the following:

Valerie Anderson, Admin Services, Academic Year

Fred Kille, Academic Affairs, Fall 1994

Ref. K for summary of proposed projects is filed in

the Regents' Office.

Mrs. Gallagher moved approval of the 1994-95 Sabbatical

Leaves. Mrs. Whitley seconded. Motion carried.

8. Approved Naming of Buildings, TMCC

Approved the naming of two TMCC buildings:

Administration building to be renamed "Red Mountain -

North and South Buildings".

Phase V building to be named "Vista - East and West


Mrs. Gallagher moved approval of the naming of two TMCC

buildings as stated above. Mrs. Sparks seconded. Motion


9. Report and Recommendations of the Audit Committee

A report and recommendations of the Audit Committee meeting,

held January 6, 1994, were made by Regent Nancy Price,


Chairman Price indicated that she felt the Audit Committee

should serve as a committee of the whole. Attendance at

scheduled meetings has been vey poor. She has requested

staff to call members of the Committee prior to the meet-

ings to be sure a quorum is present. She announced that

Mrs. June Whitley will serve as Acting Chairman in her

absence during the next three months.

(1) Information Only: Follow-Up Report on the Community

Services Audit, WNCC - Acting Director of Internal

Audit John Love presented the follow-up audit report

of Community Services, WNCC, July 1, 1992 through

March 31, 1993. The follow-up report is filed in the

Regents' Office.

Mr. Dane Apalategui, Associate Dean for Finance at

WNCC, addressed the policy on compensation that was

reported in the audit report. The internal auditors

reported that a faculty member with a heavy workload

was not addressed in the compensation policy. The

original compensation policy was rejected by the WNCC

faculty, and a revision is being developed to handle

this situation. The policy will be reviewed by the

Council of Presidents at its January 18 meeting.

It was stated that there is not a Systemwide policy

on this issue. It has been determined that it is an

institution matter and that the individual institutions

should set the standards relative to faculty workloads.

(2) Information Only: Follow-Up Report on the Academic

Advancement Audit, UNLV - Acting Director of Internal

Audit John Love presented the follow-up audit report

of Academic Affairs, UNLV, September 30, 1992 through

August 13, 1992. The follow-up report is filed in the

Regents' Office.

Chairman Price requested Acting Director Love to ex-

plain the sampling process, which he did. Chairman

Price stated that the purpose of sampling is to get

an overall feeling of the sample pool. However, she

noted that at every Audit Committee meeting there has

been a problem with inventory. She has mentioned sev-

eral times that a Systemwide standardized method should

be implemented.

Chairman Price questioned whether the situation re-

garding the lost computer had been handled appropriate-

ly. UNLV Vice President for Student Services Robert

Ackerman responded that he had sent a memorandum ex-

plaining the status of this occurrence.

In answer to Chairman Price's question, Dr. Ackerman

responded that inventory does reflect upgrades on

computers, and that the lost computer was not an up-

graded computer.

Upon questioning, Dr. Ackerman stated that insurance

recovery has been filed on the lost computer, and

depending on the replacement value of the equipment

it will be replaced.

(3) Information Only: Follow-Up Report on the Public

Safety Audit, UNLV - Acting Director of Internal

Audit John Love presented the follow-up audit report

of Public Safety, UNLV, January 1 through December 31,

1992. The follow-up report is filed in the Regents'


(4) Information Only: Report on Unrelated Business Tax -

Acting Director of Internal Audit John Love presented

information regarding the unrelated business tax.

Chairman Price indicated that this issue is a very

serious matter for the System and should be addressed


Acting Director Love reported that the Exempt Organi-

zation Business Income Tax Return has been filed for

approximately 4 years. Each UCCSN institution is

responsible for sending in a schedule of unrelated

business income (loss) in a format which shows in-

dividual line items of revenue and expenditures. He

stated that UCCSN has not been assessed any taxes as

of this date. UCCSN does keep up-to-date on this


Acting Director Love reported that in 1992 the In-

ternal Revenue Service (IRS) started a coordinated

examination program. It is an audit based upon a

team audit approach where IRS audit experts from a

number of areas are brought together to audit all fac-

ets of an organization in a single audit. The intent

is to increase tax assessments and to improve the

IRS's knowledge of the individual entity being audit-

ed and the industry. Prior to this time, IRS focused

on specific individual areas each time it performed an

audit, such as employment taxes, Unrelated Business

Income Tax (UBIT), fringe benefits, independent

contractors, etc.

The IRS is sending 2 to 6 agents to an institution for

a period of at least one year. They started with 7

institutions and are expanding. The IRS examination

goes way beyond UBIT to include many other areas such

as employment taxes and fringe benefits, W-2's, schol-

arships and fellowships, donors' records, etc.

Some of the inside documentation they are examining

are school bulletin and course catalogues, school

telephone directories (useful tool to identify the

institution's components and related organizations),

any contracts the schools are involved in, list of all

committees on Campus and any reports from committees

such as minutes, including faculty meetings of any

kind, student newspapers, alumni bulletins and maga-

zines, any catalogue or descriptive lists of Univer-

sity publications, description of the institution's

accounting system including chart of accounts, re-

quisitions and purchase orders, looking for any arms-

length contract, indirect cost reimbursement calcula-

tions for federal programs with HHS, employment taxes

and fringe benefits, W-2's, FICA, FUTA taxes, inde-

pendent contractors forms.

Acting Director Love reported that IRS also reviews

outside documentation such as accreditation reports,

independent auditors financial statements, management

letter, identify any non-University related ancillary

activities such as rental of facilities, or food

catering to the general public.

He stated that because of this review, UCCSN contracted

Deloitte & Touche to give a 6 hour seminar on November

29, 1993 which was well attended. Advisory Tax Partner

of Deloitte & Touch, Mr. Randall Snowling, has exten-

sive experience in dealing with various kinds of non-

profit organizations including colleges and universi-

ties. In addition, Mr. Russ Bradshaw, Tax Accountant

of Deloitte & Touche, discussed reporting requirements

and penalities.

Mr. Snowling stated during the seminar that from his

conversations with the institutions being audited, it

has taken an average of 2 man years to comply with

IRS requests. It has taken approximately 500 to 800

hours of outside consulting work. The University of

Colorado has been assessed $20,000,000 for not comply-

ing with employment tax issues.

Acting Director Love stated that this is a very de-

tailed compliance audit and UCCSN should be prepared:

Obtain and review IRS Examination Guidelines;

Review Employment Tax Issues such as Independent

Contractor Issues, scholarships, W-2 reporting/

fringe benefits, 1099's, etc.;

Consider setting up a contingency liability in the


When notified of the audit, have a contact person

that knows tax laws. It will be very important to

have such a person who can determine if the infor-

mation going to IRS is appropriate or if the infor-

mation received from IRS is appropriate;

Review UBIT for Lawlor Events Center, Thomas and

Mack Center and the Silver Bowl since they include

90% of the revenue not reported on the 990T (Unre-

lated Business Income Tax Form); and

Hire outside consultant to review 990T and Events

Centers to determine if they are appropriately re-

porting Revenue and Expenses.

Acting Director Love stated that he has sent a memoran-

dum to the Event Centers to set up a meeting to discuss

these issues.

Chairman Price indicated to the Presidents that there

were a number of people who should have attended the

seminar, such as the alumni associations. She felt

that just because people were not in attendance is no

reason for not knowing the ramifactions of such an

audit. The information must be distributed throughout

the institutions.

Chairman Price requested that the next Audit Committee

meeting address the cost and process of such an audit.

Mrs. Price moved approval of the report and recommendations

of the Audit Committee. Mr. Klaich seconded. Motion car-


10. Report and Recommendations of the Academic, Research and

Student Affairs Committee

A report and recommendations of the Academic, Research and

Student Affairs Committee meeting, held January 6, 1994,

were made by Regent Dorothy Gallagher, Chairman.

(1) Approved the M. S. and Ph. D. in Environmental Science

and Health at UNR, as contained in Ref. ARS-2, filed

in the Regents' Office.

This interdisciplinary program will include tracks in

Environmental Chemistry, Ecotoxicology and Risk Assess-

ment and Environmental Toxicology and Health. Faculty

from 7 organizational units including the Medical

School and the Desert Research Institute will partici-

pate in the program.

The proposed program will be coordinated through the

University Center for Environmental Sciences and

Engineering at UNR. No new faculty will be needed to

implement this multidisciplinary program as approxi-

mately 25 current faculty members will participate.

Graduate student stipends will be funded by extramural

grants. The program was identified in UNR's academic

master plan for consideration during the 1993-95


(2) Approved the B. S. with majors in Physical Education,

Kinesiological Sciences and Fitness and Sports Manage-

ment at UNLV, as contained in Ref. ARS-3, filed in the

Regents' Office.

This proposal is a request for a change in title from

the existing B. S. in Education and a revision of 3

current areas of concentration to majors.

A reorganization in 1991 resulted in the replacement

of the Physical Education Department, then located in

the College of Education, with the Department of

Kinesiology in the College of Human Performance and

Development at UNLV. The proposed changes will better

reflect the areas of study within the new Department

and the relocation from the College of Education. No

new resources are needed.

(3) Information Only: Report on UCCSN Campus Honors Pro-

grams - At the request of the Board of Regents, infor-

mation on Campus honors programs and related activities

were presented. Ref. ARS-1 is filed in the Regents'


Mr. Klaich thanked the members of the Committee for

allowing this item to be heard while he was in


Interim Vice Chancellor Karen Steinberg highlighted the

Community Colleges' prepared statement, contained in

Ref. ARS-1. Both UNR and UNLV proceeded to make indi-

vidual presentations on the Honors Program at the re-

spective institutions.

Dr. Frank Hartigan, Director of Honors Program at UNR,

presented a slide show which paralleled the report con-

tained in Ref. ARS-1. He announced that his UNLV col-

league, Dr. Len Zane, Director of the UNLV Honors

Program, is also President-Elect of the National Honors


Dr. Hartigan reported that UNR's Honors Program began

in 1962 as a small independent studies program. The

"University Self-Study" that was prepared for accredi-

tation purposes criticized the old program and called

for major reform. The new program enrolled its first

students, a class of 50, in the Fall semester of 1989.

In 1993, UNR graduated its first Honors Program class.

During the 1980's, Nevada high school graduates left

the State to attend College. In order for UNR to re-

verse the "Brain Drain", it began recruiting the top

high school graduates in Nevada and offered them a

competitive national education.

Dr. Hartigan reported that close contact is maintained

with high school students through visits, particpation

in College fairs in Las Vegas and Reno, and participa-

tion in UNR's Out of Reach activities, such as the

Nevada Institute for Gifted and Talented High School


He stated that the Honors Program does not require its

students to participate in service, but it is encour-

aged. Such service areas include tutoring of other

students, particpating in the Freshman Retreat and

Welcome Week activities, and contributing to the en-

vironment through cooperation with the U. S. Forest

Service in erosion control work.

Honor students are involved in the Western Regional

Honors Council and the National Collegiate Honors

Council. The Honors Program sponsors Pizza Seminars,

which is a means for students to discuss issues with

noted authorities. The Honors Program places all stu-

dents on "Internet" in order to better communicate


Dr. Hartigan reported that thus far every Honors Pro-

gram student who has applied to Medical School has

been accepted. A UNR student won a prestigious Na-

tional Science Foundation Fellowship, which is the

first by a Nevada graduate in at least 10 years. Of

the 12 available National Samantha Smith East European

Exchange Fellowships, UNR was awarded 4.

Dr. Hartigan introduced 3 Honors Program students,

Lyn Carlson, Midori Ishibashi and Jeff Avansino.

These students each told his own story of how the

program has enhanced his life academically, profes-

sionally and personally.

Dr. Len Zane, Director of Honors Program at UNLV, re-

ported that UNLV encourages Nevada high school gradu-

ates to stay in Nevada and attend public higher educa-

tion. After the student graduates and attains further

education outside of Nevada, UNLV encourages him to

return and contribute to Nevada. UNLV offers two dif-

ferrent Honors Program tracks: a 4-year program and a

2-year program. These programs provide for the student

to take specially developed courses which are designed

around the general education core requirements. Stu-

dents in the Honors Program replace the core require-

ments with honors courses.

Dr. Zane stated that honors courses have smaller en-

rollments and require more reading, writing and dis-

cussion. Students satisfy the majority of their core

requirements with lower-division honors courses. The

honors seminars were incorporated into the program so

that students continue their liberal education during

their Junior and Senior years and continue to interact

with other diverse students. The honors students learn

to respect all students and engage in various topics.

The Honors Program at UNLV has been in operation for

9 years and has graduated over 90 students. These

students are now attending professional schools. UNLV

is attempting to assess these students after they grad-

udate from UNLV. If they should return to the Las

Vegas area, Dr. Zane is hopeful that they will serve

as mentors of the Program.

In closing, Dr. Zane stated that the two Honors Pro-

grams, UNR and UNLV, are striving to make the programs

more competitive and attractive to the more competitive

student in order that he will choose to attend either


Mrs. Price commented that she served as Graduate Stu-

dent President when this program was beginning. She

has watched UNLV's program grow and is very excited

about the progress the program as made.

Mr. Graves questioned the results of the follow-up

student survey of 1989 and the test scores varying so

much between the Universities. Dr. Zane responded that

these responses were from the first students enrolled

in the Honors Program. The program has made much prog-

ress over the years from its early inception. In re-

gard to the test scores, Dr. Zane stated that the SAT

scores are not always reliable predictors on how stu-

dents will perform in the Honors Program. He gave a

few examples of how the test scores may have hindered

some of the students, but he gave these students a

chance to prove themselves. He really tries to give

every student the advantage to participate in the


Dr. Hartigan responded that UNR's program utilizes the

test scores to reflect the fact that UNR has a limited

number of places in the Program. UNR's Program has ad-

mitted students with as low an ACT test score of 20.

The Presidential Scholarship Program, which requires a

3.5 GPA and an ACT test score of 31 or higher, or an

SAT test score of 1300 or higher, usually has a large

number of students with high scores. The UNR Honors

Board has felt that test scores were not always repre-

sentative of a student's abilities. The test scores

are used as a predictor.

Mr. Klaich commented that the term "Brain Drain" was

used quite extensively in the 1980's, but he now pre-

fers the term "Institution of Choice". This philoso-

phy has become his focus in making UNR and UNLV proud

institutifons that will attract Nevada high school

graduates as their first choice. Those students who

have graduated at top of their high school class and

have chosen to stay in Nevada, send a positive message

back to their high schools for higher education in

Nevada. He commended those who have sent that message

to the high schools and have stayed in Nevada because

UCCSN offers them an "Institution of Choice".

Mrs. Gallagher thanked the Community College Presidents

in recognizing the students of quality. She thanked

Drs. Hartigan and Zane for their presentations. She

stated that this report was a "breath of fresh air"

for UCCSN and she is delighted and proud of the insti-


Mrs. Gallagher moved approval of the report and recommenda-

tions of the Academic, Research and Student Affairs Commit-

tee. Mr. Klaich seconded. Motion carried.

11. Report and Recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee on Ethnic

Minority Affairs

A report and recommendations of the ad hoc Committee on

Ethnic Minority Affairs meetings, held December 17, 1993

and January 6, 1994, were made by Regent June Whitley,


December 17, 1993

(1) Discussion of Committee Recommendations - Chairman

Whitley stated the Committee had originally planned to

have recommendations for the Board of Regents in Decem-

ber; however, because of the delays with the student

and faculty surveys on the Campuses, that has not been

possible. She asked for suggestions from the Presi-

dents for Committee recommendations.

President Remington stated that with review of all the

Campus reports, the main items of concern are retention

and recruitment of students and a need for more agres-

sive action with hiring of personnel. President Tara-

nik stated that the one concern in recruitment is to

make certain people are qualified for the position.

At DRI, he stated they had changed from a search com-

mittee to a screening committee. Specific qualifica-

tions for each position are identified and the commit-

tee screens for the potential in the applicants. That

committee presents to the supervisor an unranked list

of qualified candidates with strengths and weaknesses

listed. The supervisors have been trained to be pro-

active in affirmative action affairs. Hiring decisions

are made by the supervisor.

President Meacham questioned whether this process met

legal guidelines and cautioned against reverse dis-

crimination. He stated that CCSN currently is in-

volved in a reverse discrimination suit.

Chairman Whitley stated she would recommend the Board

have a permanent committee on diversity, and that

there be an assistant to the Chancellor hired to over-

see diversity for the System.

President Calabro suggested a Board policy might be

developed for screening committees to provide unranked

lists to the President (or supervisors). If such

policy were approved, Campuses would then amend their

bylaws to comply.

President Maxson suggested that recruitment goals,

rather than quotas, might be set, with written reports

to the Chancellor at specific times stating whether

goals had been reached. In the area of retention, he

suggested that both the System and the Campuses could

establish programs, with funding provided. He also

argued for a process which would take advantage of

"windows of opportunities" which might be presented

to a Campus, and gave the example of UNLV awarding a

Ph. D. to a Native American. Since they have an in-

stitution policy not to hire their own Ph. D.'s, the

Education Department asked for, and received, special

permission to hire this very talented person.

President Taranik suggested that recruiting goals

could be based on population statistics.

President Gwaltney stated there is a need, at the

Community College level, for a network to identify

those persons being trained at Nevada's institutions.

One possibility would be to pay for a sabbatical leave

at the Community College for a time. He also suggested

that thought should be given to preparing part-time

faculty for full-time positions.

Interim Chancellor Richardson announced that the Pew

Charity has funded, through WICHE, grants for assist-

antships for graduate students.

Interim Chancellor Richardson stated that the System

Office would review the Campus reports and the com-

ments made at this meeting and would prepare draft

recommendations for review by institutional representa-

tives and the Council of Presidents and then refer them

to the Committee and the Board.

Chairman Whitley questioned why there were differences

in statistics for the UNLV and CCSN Campuses when both

institutions are in the same community. President

Meacham explained that many Community College students

and faculty do come from the Las Vegas area; that many

students demand courses for retraining; and that many

courses are technical in nature. President Maxson

stated that most UNLV faculty do not come from Las

Vegas, but come from outside the State. President

Meacham also pointed out that when an institution

has higher numbers, it is much more difficult to in-

crease the percentage of change in diversity. Presi-

dent Maxson added that UNLV probably has the greatest

diversity in faculty, staff and Administrators in the

System. Chairman Whitley added that the Chancellor's

staff has the least diverse representation. Dr. John

Swetnam, UNLV Faculty Senate, offered that students

from North Las Vegas attend CCSN because of the con-

venience of the Campus and the cost.

Chairman Whitley stated she wanted the Presidents to

feel they are responsible for accomplishing diversity

and felt that diversity should be a factor in their


January 6, 1994

(1) Information Only: Discussion of Committee Recommenda-

tions - Chairman Whitley led a discussion on sugges-

tions for recommendations for the System.

Interim Vice Chancellor Steinberg summarized the

recommendations discussed as follows:

Chancellor's staff will extract System recommenda-

tions from the Campus reports to be presented at

the next meeting in February.

A strong policy statement and strong endorsement

of ethnic activities throughout the System must

be made. The policy statement should be made by

the Board of Regents with the institutions re-

sponding accordingly.

A high level position in the Chancellor's Office

be created to monitor the goals set by the Board.

A Board of Regents' standing committee on diversity

be established.

In addition, Interim Vice Chancellor Steinberg stated

that the Blue Ribbon Task Force met and has responded

to the recommendations. She stated that their comments

were very similar to the System recommendations. They,

too, see a strong statement of vision and goals, and

that these goals should be monitored and implemented.

Chairman Whitley stated that a suggestion was made in

that the Affirmative Action Office or Diversity Officer

at each institution be able to intervene in the hiring

process. Each of the Presidents responded to this

suggestion and it was concluded that at each institu-

tion the Affirmative Action Officer is involved in the

hiring process. Chairman Whitley requested each Pres-

ident submit to the Chancellor's Office a description

of the hiring process.

In regard to the proposed new position in the Chancel-

lor's Office for diversity, Dr. Derby stated that she

had contacted the University of California System for

information on such a position. She suggested that

additional information be collected from around the

country in order for the Committee to be more specific

in its discussions on this very important recommenda-

tion. Chairman Whitley directed Interim Vice Chancel-

lor Steinberg to address Dr. Derby's request.

President Taranik commented that at this point in time,

the System is under-represented for the desired diver-

sity it wishes to have. However, over a long period

of time the System has made progress in this area.

Diversity takes time to obtain. If the System is mak-

ing progress, then it should be noted that the process

being used is operating.

Mrs. Carolyn Sparks cautioned the Committee on obtain-

ing equity -- quality should not be sacrificed for the

sake of reaching quotas. She stated that if qualified

persons of color are not in the job market then it

makes it difficult to fill the position with that ob-

jective in mind. It will become a disservice to the

System if handled in this manner.

Chairman Whitley stated that she appreciated Mrs.

Sparks' comments, but questioned why is there always

a question of quality when diversity is the subject.

Mrs. Sparks responded that she did not want to see a

position filled with an unqualified person. Dr. Derby

stated that the System will not lower its standards to

fill a position. She recognized that the applicant

pools may be limited, and this can become an excuse

or a challenge for the System. She is hopeful that

the System will become challenged to find the most

qualified person for the position and who is of a

minority race or minority gender.

(2) New Business - Mr. Jesse Sattwaite, President of Black

Alumni, stated that he agreed that unskilled and un-

educated persons should not be hired to meet a quota.

He felt that the Blue Ribbon Task Force meetings have

been very productive and the Committee is making prog-

ress. He praised Chairman Whitley for her leadership.

In addition, he praised President Crowley and his staff

for the progress UNR has made in addressing ethnic

minority issues. He informed the Committee that he

will approach the Black Alumni to raise money for the

UNR minorities. He thanked the Committee for helping

minority students and alumnus.

Dr. David Turner, student at UNLV, stated that he was

unhappy with the recent Campus report. He did not

feel it accurately represented UNLV and the student

government. One such statement made in the report

was that there were no minority students serving in

student government. He stated, for the record, that

he does serve on the student government at UNLV, and

has taken offense to this statement. The report does

note some good ideas, but it will not do any good if

the information is not accurate. He requested the

Committee to review UNLV's report again after it has

more accurately reported the views of students. As

the report stands now, it will not benefit the students

if it is followed. He offered to work in conjunction

with the Campus committee to make the report more

accurate. Interim Vice Chancellor Steinberg reminded

the Committee that this report was developed based on

an opinion survey.

Mrs. Whitley moved approval of the report of the ad hoc

Committee on Ethnic Minority Affairs. Mr. Graves seconded.

Motion carried.

The open meeting recessed at 11:38 A.M. for UCCSN Foundation

meetings and reconvened at 11:51 A.M. Thursday, January 6, 1994,

with all Regents present except Regent Foley.

12. Closed Session

Upon motion by Mr. Klaich, seconded by Mr. Graves, the Board

moved to a closed session for the discussion of the charac-

ter, alleged misconduct, professional competence, or physi-

cal or mental health of an employee(s) of the UCCSN in

accordance with NRS 241.030.

The open meeting recessed at 11:52 A.M. and reconvened in closed

session at 12:15 P.M. with all Regents present except Regent

Foley. The open meeting reconvened at 2:12 P.M. Thursday,

January 6, 1994, with all Regents present except Regent Foley.

13. Information Only: Regents' Workshop

A workshop session was held to discuss two separate issues:

1) Student Affairs Council, and 2) the UCCSN Budget.

A. Student Affairs Council - The members of the UCCSN Stu-

dent Affairs Council provided information in a workshop

format about Student Services. An overview of the work-

shop materials is contained in Ref. D, filed in the

Regents' Office.

Dr. Jackie Kirkland, Chair of UCCSN Student Affairs

Council, introduced the members of the Council -- Dr.

Patricia Miltenberger, Dr. Jean Thomas-Sims, Dr.

Patricia Butler, Dr. Robert Ackerman, Mr. Bill Davies

and Mr. Stan Aiazzi. Dr. Kirkland gave a description

of what the area of Student Services encompasses.

There are approximately 26 areas from academic advising

and counseling services to learning assistance programs

and transfer centers. She distributed a handout that

lists the common functional areas for comprehensive

Student Services programs based on national standards.

Dr. Robert Ackerman gave an historical perspective of

the role of Student Services in the development of stu-

dents, from the practice of in loco parentis to today's

student development theory. He stated that the Board

of Regents has reaffirmed its commitment to Student

Services, and the Council is appreciative of Interim

Chancellor Richardson's directive to expand the duties

of the Vice Chancellor for Academic and Student Affairs

to include the oversight of Student Services. Dr.

Ackerman briefly outlined Student Services in higher

education. The United States model of undergraduate

education includes residential life. It is hoped that

the experience of attending College will enable skills

and values to be learned for the future. Human devel-

opment is studied and practiced throughout Student

Services. The staff uses the entire Campus as its

classroom and laboratory and provides various experi-

ences for students. Although development growth is

difficult to measure, the Campus life experience is

an educational experience that gives meaning to the

human development experience.

Mr. Jean Thomas-Sims discussed the Student Services

mission statement and the assumptions of Student Serv-

ices, including that each student is unique and that

out-of-class environments affect learning. Each stu-

dent has worth and dignity, and personal circumstances

affect each students' learning ability. She stated

that student involvement also enhances the learning


Dr. Patricia Butler highlighted the most prevalent

assumptions of learning:

1. That each student is unique.

2. Feelings affect thinking and learning: family,

age, cultural and social needs.

3. Each person has worth and dignity: developing

caring communities.

4. Personal circumstances affect learning: finan-

cial, handicaps, time management, alert to per-

sonal circumstances, family, work, gender, non-

speaking English, ethnic, first generation.

5. Student involvement enhances learning: assume

responsibility for quality of learning and for

their lives.

6. Out-of-class environments affect learning:

social and physical.

Dr. Thomas-Sims added that institutional characteristics

also enhance student development.

Mr. Bill Davies distributed the "Strategic Directions

for the University and Community College System of

Nevada". He identified the UCCSN strategic directions

and objectives which relate to the Student Services

function. The Executive Summary contains two strategic

directions identified for the UCCSN that relate to Stu-

dent Services:

a) The UCCSN will strive to enhance access to and

retention in public postsecondary education.

b) The UCCSN will recognize and reflect the diver-

sity of society within its institutions.

These directives are appropriate for the tradition and

history of how Student Service programs are formed.

The Student Affairs Council is appreciative of the

Board for including these particular directives for


Dr. Davies stated that people take care of people and

people take care of students. With the current finan-

cial conditions placed on higher education in Nevada,

UCCSN has been very fortunate to have quality people

in the Student Services programs to implement the vari-

ous programs. The budget contraints are a very serious

problem for Student Services throughout UCCSN.

Mr. Klaich stated that this was a very important pres-

entation that gave the traditional view of education

with the perfect mix of Student Services that enhances

the College experience. Student Services are being

talked about, and we need to all work together. This

is a prime example of why the funding formulas are

necessary. He stated that without the formulas, these

programs would be diminished.

Dr. Derby stated that this presentation brings the

Board back to the student issues. It is very important

to know all the ways Student Services affect the stu-

dents. She stated that the Student Affairs Council

was part of the effort in developing UCCSN's Strategic

Directions, and she was pleased to see that the direc-

tives are playing out throughout the System.

Dr. Kirkland informed the Board that this presentation

has been condensed, and there is so much more to Stu-

dent Services. The Student Affairs Council has a pas-

sion for these services and feels they are critical.

She stated that Student Services does not exist in

isolation, there is a collaboration with the the entire


Mrs. Berkley commended the Student Affairs Council for

the presentation. She, too, is pleased to see the

Strategic Directions being utilized. Mrs. Berkley

disagreed with Mr. Klaich by stating that formula

funding does not provide adequate resources for Student

Services, and that she does not see formula funding ad-

dressing these issues.

Mrs. Sparks suggested that the handout listing the

Student Services programs be included when discussing

student support and staffing with Legislators. She

felt that they would be greatly surprised at all the

services provided.

Mrs. Price clarified that prior to formula funding,

funding was based on prioritizing what UCCSN believed

was important. Dr. Eardley responded that at some of

the institutions, the Student Services staff also

teach courses. UCCSN has gone before the Legislature's

budget committees and were questioned why UCCSN would

need money for counseling -- adults don't need counsel-

ing. However, times have changed.

Mrs. Gallagher expressed her appreciation for the pres-

entation. She has always believed in holding these

types of workshop sessions for the Board of Regents

which enlighten the Board of Regents of the specific

issues throughout UCCSN. As Chairman of the Academic

Research and Student Affairs Committee, Mrs. Gallagher

stated that she would be willing to schedule additional


The workshop session is continued after item 14.

14. 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 regular meeting held

December 2-3, 1993.

(2) Approved the gifts, grants and contracts, listed in

Ref. C-1, filed with the permanent minutes.

(3) Approved a Handbook amendment to Title 5, Chapter 18,

Article III, Sec. 2.2, Constitution of the Graduate

Student Association of the University of Nevada, Reno,

as contained in Ref. C-2, filed in the Regents' Of-


(4) Approved a Handbook amendment to Title 4, Chapter 18,

Section 5, Grants-in-Aid, Professional Staff and

Dependents, as contained in Ref. C-3, filed in the

Regents' Office.

The changes would allow employees to take 6 credits

per semester without a limit on the number of classes

and 3 credits per Summer Session without a limit on

the number of classes. The policy would no longer

require approval of a Dean or Department Head for

University classes and the policy would no longer

allow an institution to charge another institution

out-of-state tuition for the spouse or dependents of

an employee.

(5) Approved a USDA lease for the Fallon Service Center

Office space at UNR. The lease is for 4789 sq. ft.

of office space at the Fallon Service Center.

The original terms of the lease will remain in force

with the following exceptions:

1. Lease term shall be 3 years from date of


2. Lessee shall pay to Lessor $.80 per sq. ft.

for a total of $45,974.40 per year.

3. Total square footage leased will be 4789.

(6) Approved a UNR extension of lease of the Chaney Farm

to Robert O. Burnham and Robert E. Burnham, DBA

Hillside Farms of Diamond Valley.

The original terms of the lease will remain in force

with the following exceptions:

1. Article 2: Lease term shall be 6 years from

date of inception.

2. Article 3: Lessee shall pay to Lessor twelve

percent (12%) of total revenue generated from

sale of crops produced on said premises.

(7) Approved authorization to utilize Capital Improvement

Fees at NNCC in the amount of $54,000 for the follow-

ing projects:

NNCC contribution to the Ely facility $50,000

Civil Engineering fees for the Mark Dawson

Child Care Facility $ 4,000

(8) Approved authorization to utilize Capital Improvement

Fees at CCSN in the amount of $100,000 for the pur-

chase of exercise equipment as per the lease-purchase

agreement with Mr. Claude Howard for the former

Camelot Spa on West Sahara in Las Vegas.

(9) Approved the following amendments to the Handbook:

A. Title 4, Chapter 3, Section 22, Summer Session

Salary Schedule, UNR, as contained in Ref. C-4,

filed in the Regents' Office.

B. Title 4, Chapter 3, Section 22, Summer Session

Salary Schedule, UNLV, as contained in Ref. C-5,

filed in the Regents' Office.

(10) Approved the 1992-93 Actual to Budgeting Budget

Reports which are filed in the Regents' Office.

(11) Approved the following Summer Session Budgets for


A. UNLV Summer Session Budget

Extended Education

Summer Term

1993 1994

Projected Budgeted

Actual Estimate


Opening Account Balance $ 230,028 $ 229,097


Student Fees 3,332,730 3,432,712

Transfers In 1,387 2,000

Total Source of Funds $3,564,145 $3,663,809


Professional Salaries $2,541,195 $2,795,315

Fringe Benefits 99,033 108,936

Classified Salaries 39,335 41,302

Fringe Benefits 8,654 9,086

Wages 1,000 2,500

Fringe Benefits 12 30

Operating 52,095 61,100

Out-of-State Travel 5,000 7,500

Total Expenditures $2,746,324 $3,025,769

Transfers Out 588,724 408,040

Ending Account Balance $ 229,097 $ 230,000

Total Use of Funds $3,564,145 $3,663,809

B. UNR Summer Session Budget

1993 1994

Projected Budgeted

Actual Estimate


Opening Account Balance $ 327,455 $ 439,116


Student Fees 1,254,992 1,280,000

Total Source of Funds $1,582,447 $1,719,116


Professional Salaries $ 713,747 $ 820,809

Fringe Benefits 22,054 29,140

Graduate Assistant Salaries 2,950 3,392

Fringe Benefits 35 41

Classified Salaries 0 0

(See Transfers Out)

Fringe Benefits 0 0

(See Transfers Out)

Wages 11,310 14,500

Fringe Benefits 136 174

Travel 4,400 6,000

Operating 78,082 75,550

Total Expenditures $ 832,714 $ 949,606

Ending Account Balance 439,116 438,065

Transfers Out 310,617 331,445

Total Use of Funds $1,582,447 $1,719,116

(12) Approved the following Self-Supporting Budgets at UNR:

A. School of Medicine, Microbiology

School of Medicine/Microbiology

DNA Analysis Lab

1993 1994

Projected Budgeted

Actual Estimate


Opening Account Balance $ 621 $ 0


Sales & Service 60,067 60,113

Total Source of Funds $ 60,688 $ 60,113


Classified Salaries $ 5,955 $ 12,443

Fringe Benefits 135 4,355

Wages 0 11,000

Fringe Benefits 0 132

Travel 239 800

Operating 52,848 28,384

Equipment 1,511 2,999

Total Expenditures $ 60,688 $ 60,113

Ending Account Balance $ 0 $ 0

Total Use of Funds $ 60,688 $ 60,113

B. College of Agriculture, Laboratory Animal Medicine


College of Agriculture/Laboratory Animal


Sheep Laboratory





Opening Account Balance $ 0


Sales & Service 153,230

Total Source of Funds $ 153,230


Classified Salaries $ 30,355

Fringe Benefits 8,803

Wages 13,116

Fringe Benefits 1,573

Operating 99,383

Total Expenditures $ 153,230

Ending Account Balance $ 0

Total Use of Funds $ 153,230

C. Cooperative Extension, Southern Area, UNR

Cooperative Extension/Southern Area

ES-WIC/Nutrition Education





Opening Account Balance $ 0


Misc: USDA-WIC 30,000

Total Source of Funds $ 30,000


Classified Salaries $ 16,667

Fringe Benefits 4,333

Travel 2,000

Operating 7,000

Total Expenditures $ 30,000

Ending Account Balance $ 0

Total Use of Funds $ 30,000

(13) Approved the following interlocal agreements:

A. UCCSN Board of Regents/UNR and the Department of

Human Resources/Division of Child and Family

Services (Interlocal Contract)

Effective Date: Date approved by Board through

June 30, 1994

Amount : $25,051 to UNR

Purpose : UNR's College of Education to

develop a program of early inter-

vention services for children

with developmental delays (ages

birth through two years) and

their families and early child-

hood mental health services for

children (ages birth through six

years) and their families.

B. UCCSN Board of Regents/Nevada School of Medicine

and the Department of Human Resources/Welfare

Division (Interlocal Contract)

Effective Date: Date approved by Board through

June 30, 1994

Amount : $115,000 to Medical School

Purpose : Medical School to provide ana-

lytical reports and consultation

services to assist the Welfare

Division in rendering rehabili-

tation services to disabled

clients eligible for Nevada


C. UCCSN Board of Regents/UNR and the Department of

Human Resources (Interlocal Contract)

Effective Date: Amendment to exend time through

September 30, 1994

Amount : $6,000 to UNR

Purpose : Amendment -- UNR's Center for

Applied Research to conduct

analysis of records contained

in database to establish base-

line of information regarding

high risk SED children (severly

emotionally disturbed).

D. UCCSN Board of Regents/UNR and the Department of

Human Resources/Division of Child and Family

Services (Interlocal Contract)

Effective Date: January 15 through June 15, 1994

Amount : $10,000 to UNR

Purpose : UNR to provide early intervention

services for children with devel-

opment delays (ages birth through

two years) and their families and

early childhood mental health

services for children (ages birth

through six years).

E. UCCSN Board of Regents/UNR and the Department of

Conservation and Natural Resources/Division of

Environmental Protection (Interlocal Contract)

Effective Date: Date approved by Board through

August 31, 1995

Amount : $236,841 to UNR

Purpose : UNR to provide pollution preven-

tion technical assistance to

Nevada businesses and assist with

grant application, evaluation and

project assessment components of

the business grant program estab-

lished under NAC 444.8752 through


F. UCCSN Board of Regents/UNLV and the Department of

Human Resources/Health Division (Interlocal


Effective Date: Date approved by Board through

November 1, 1994

Amount : $6,300 to UNLV

Purpose : UNLV to conduct telephone survey

of primary care providers to col-

lect information on all primary

care providers practicing in

rural/frontier Nevada and a sta-

tistically significant sample of

primary care providers in urban


G. UCCSN Board of Regents/DRI and Clark County

Health District (Interlocal Contract)

Effective Date: Date approved by Board through

June 30, 1994

Amount : $148,253 to DRI

Purpose : DRI to conduct a Winter Carbon

Monoxide Hotspot Study in Las


Mrs. Whitley moved adoption of the Consent Agenda. Mr.

Klaich seconded. Motion carried.

13. Information Only: Regents' Workshop (continued)

B. UCCSN Budget - A workshop on the UCCSN Budget was pre-

sented by Interim Chancellor Richardson and Vice Chan-

cellor Sparks. An overview of all formulas used to

construct the budget was presented. The Board of Re-

gents began discussing the base budget parameters and

priorities for new funding. Vice Chancellor Sparks

distributed material that supported his presentation,

filed in the Regents' Office.

Vice Chancellor Sparks reported that prior to 1985 there

were no formulas for funding for non-instructional func-

tions. UCCSN submitted individual requests, which had

to compete against each institution within the System.

The only funding that was secured from the Legislature

was for the instruction function of UCCSN. Since 1987,

Vice Chancellor Sparks reported that $25-30 million has

been directed to support services, but part of this had

been returned due to the financial constraints placed on

UCCSN. This return of funding had to do with the State

of Nevada running out of money, not with funding formu-


Vice Chancellor Sparks reported that one formula limited

to the instruction function at the institutions provided

faculty positions, classified support staff, and operat-

ing funds based upon the number of students enrolled.

This formula defined "student" in terms of full-time

equivalent students, one FTE for every 30 undergraduate

credits taken and one FTE for every 16 graduate credits


He stated that this approach had important strengths:

it provided an objective way to allocate resources

equitably, was easily understood by Legislators, helped

reduce political tensions among the institutions, re-

gions and special interest groups, and provided some

stability in planning and budgeting. This formula

recognized the need for a basic support level per stu-

dent, similar to an entitlement level used in funding


However, as the System grew by leaps and bounds, this

approach of budgeting did not acknowledge the many de-

mands placed on institutions outside the classroom.

In addition, it did not account for actual numbers of

students being served, the "headcount" populations.

He explained that five students, each taking one course,

place more service demands on an institution than "one

FTE" acknowledged in this formula. As one UCCSN Admin-

istrator stated, "...it is not FTE students that park

cars, walk on the grass, drink coffee in the Union,

flush the toilets, and require record keeping, academic

advising and personal counseling -- it is headcount stu-

dents that do and need these things."

Vice Chancellor Sparks stated that between 1985 and 1987

Nevada lawmakers established an interim committee to

study higher education financing. The committee mem-

bers were: Assemblyman Bob Thomas, Chair; State Sena-

tors Jim Gibson, Bill Raggio and Don Mello; State Assem-

blymen Joe Dini and Bill Bilyeu; Regents Daniel Klaich,

Jo Ann Sheerin and Carolyn Sparks; UCCSN Presidents

Joseph Crowley, Robert Maxson and Paul Meacham; Elaine

Wynn of Las Vegas, representing the private sector; and

Bill Bible, former State Budget Director.

The committee affirmed its support for the instruction

formula and recommended a group of formulas to the 1987

Session of the Legislature which would relieve the

crisis for the funding of support services. In the

words of Senator Jim Gibson, the formulas are designed

"to earmark funding on an empirical basis rather than a

political basis". The formulas adopted recognized

differences among the institutions, and were designed

to meet the needs associated with growth.

Vice Chancellor Sparks reminded the Board that during

the current biennium, all instruction and non-support

formulas were suspended. He stated that the projected

number of students on the Campuses are used when devel-

oping the student/faculty ratios. These ratios were

suspended for the 1993-95 biennium.

Vice Chancellor Sparks explained the current instruc-

tion funding formula, which included the student/

faculty ratios as approved by the 1991 Legislature for

the 1991-93 biennium. He indicated that the Community

College ratios are different than the University ratios.

He stated that funding was not allocated on formulas for

this biennium, but issued in a lump sum and distributed

throughout the System.

Upon questioning, Vice Chancellor Sparks indicated that

the Board of Regents has been very involved in the pre-

paration of the budget. The Board submitted a plan

which was compiled by the System Presidents and approved

by the Board of Regents.

He indicated that at the next workshop session in

February, priority requests for new funding will be

discussed for action at the next legislative session.

In responding to a question, Vice Chancellor Sparks

stated that the reason for the differentiation between

WNCC, NNCC, CCSN and TMCC is due to the economy of

scale. Mrs. Price felt that the economy of scale poses

a problem and this issue should be readdressed at the

next workshop session.

Vice Chancellor Sparks explained that the method of

calculating the number of faculty is different for

Universities and Community Colleges:

Universities - The projected FTE student enrollment

is divided by the student/faculty ratio in each


Community Colleges - The projected FTE student en-

rollment is divided by the student/faculty ratio

in each program and then a full-time/part-time

ratio of 60/40 is applied.

Mrs. Price felt that the number of students is relative-

ly flat with the recent budget reductions. Vice Chan-

cellor Sparks explained that a 6% growth projection

was used; however, the recent Fall enrollments have

indicated a 2% decline. He indicated that UCCSN expects

to continue growing in spite of the recent decline. He

further explained that based on the budget approved by

the Legislature and the projected enrollments, it is

projected that UCCSN will be about $25 million short in

funding instruction by the end of the biennium. It is

now between $20-22 million, which is based on what UCCSN

actually enrolled. UCCSN actually received $185.7 mil-

lion in FY 1993 from the State General Fund, and is

currently budgeted for $194.2 million.

Mrs. Price questioned the difference and how it is

allocated. Vice Chancellor Sparks responded that the

allocation on the target appropriation approved by the

Governor and the Legislature was based on several con-

cepts, such as new buildings, reduction in instruction,

merit increases, classified merits, and fixed costs

that must be met. He reported that the increase in the

appropriation was depleted after it was distributed

throughout the System for those specific expenditures.

The Presidents met and recommended the allocations to

the Board. Mrs. Price stated that it is the responsi-

bility of the Board of Regents to allocate the funds

and there is no value when the authority is given to

the Presidents to transfer the funds at the institu-


Mr. Klaich disagreed and stated that the transfer of

funds at the institutions has nothing to do with the

allocation from the Legislature. He stated that

formula funding passes throughout the 7 institutions,

and it is quite different from what the Presidents

choose to do with the funds once it is appropriated.

Vice Chancellor Sparks added that funds cannot be

transferred between the institutions; however, the

institutions have been given the flexibility to trans-

fer funds between the budget functions at the insti-

tutions. It is important to allow the institutions

this flexibility.

Upon questioning, Vice Chancellor Sparks indicated that

under the current budget structure, the funds can be

allocated between functions. However, if the formulas

were fully funded, which currently they are not, then

transfers would violate the integrity of the formulas.

Interim Chancellor Richardson stated that it is very

important to distinguish between the appropriation and

allocation process. UCCSN requests an appropriation

based on the agreed funding formulas, although it

would be best if the formulas were fully funded. This

has never occurred in Nevada and the last legislative

session chose to disregard the formulas altogether and

allocated specific funding for each institution. He

stated that what Vice Chancellor Sparks is saying is

that UCCSN needs to return to the agreed upon standards

for building an appropriation. Once the appropriation

is made, then it becomes subject to an internal alloca-

tion. Once the appropriations have been approved, the

Board of Regents has allowed the Presidents to develop

a budget and to present that operating budget to Board

of Regents for approval. He noted that this may be

different than the actual appropriation. He stated

that this is a confusing process for any lay person;

however, it is a far better process than those states

who appropriate an amount of dollars for instruction

and do not allow for transfers without approval. The

Nevada Legislature allows UCCSN the authority to allo-

cate the funds appropriated. Vice Chancellor Sparks

agreed, and added that there are a number of letters

of intent that address the specifics which need to be

adhered to as well.

Mrs. Sparks reminded the Board that when UCCSN was

first notified by the Governor that the budgets were

going to be reduced and that he was going to recommend

a lump sum appropriation rather than having a line item

budget, the Governor gave authority to the Board of

Regents and the Presidents to allocate the funds. The

responsibility of the Regents is to allow the Presidents

this flexibility and have them report back to the Board.

It is not the Board's responsibility to direct the Pres-

idents on how to spend their funds.

Mrs. Price stated that it was her understanding that the

the role of the Board of Regents in this budget process

was to: 1) allocate funds on what the System values;

and 2) actually spend those funds on those values.

The current budget process contains all those issues

which Interim Chancellor Richardson discussed earlier.

She felt that when there are additional funds, then the

Board of Regents should set priorities that should be

directed to the System's values. She did not feel that

this was being performed in this manner.

Vice Chancellor Sparks stated that the process has been

approved by the Board of Regents. He indicated that if

the Board so chooses, it has the right to vote down the

progrms or change the programs. Mrs. Price felt that

this is what happens after the process.

Dr. Derby stated that the Board needs to understand how

the strategic directions intersect with the allocation

of funds. She stated that the governing boards are

about values and vision, while the budget is a state-

ment of those values. Vice Chancellor Sparks responded

that the student/faculty ratios and the continuation of

existing programs are the basis of the base budget. He

felt that the strategic directions would greatly influ-

ence the priority requests for new funding which could

include a new student/faculty ratio for that specific

strategic direction. It will then be addressed in the

operating budget in the future. He reminded the Board

that the priority budget never gets funded in total and

this is where the strategic directions are addressed

for the most part.

Mrs. Berkley stated that if the base budget were ever

fully funded, then it would be good for the System.

However, it is never fully funded and therefore, UCCSN

never has the opportunity to get priorities funded.

There is no funding directed to the strategic directions

at this time.

Mrs. Price indicated that funding from the Legislature

is only a portion of what the System spends. She

stated that less than half of the funding for higher

education is allocated from the Legislature. The

Board needs to discuss that other source of funding.

A five minute recess was called. All Regents were present upon

return except Regents Berkley and Graves.

Chairman Eardley requested each President to respond to

the budget process.

President Gwaltney stated that the Legislature institut-

ed an 11% reduction for TMCC. This has affected TMCC's

projections and dreams. Even though there is more money

there is actually less money to operate with. He stated

that 80% of the budget is allocated on fixed costs and

if there is a 5% reduction it comes from the remainder

of the 100% allocation (20%). It then becomes immensely


Mr. Graves returned to the meeting.

President Gwaltney continued by stating that Consumer

Price Index is not increasing 2-3%; library materials

have risen dramatically; handicap mandates are legal

commitments that the institutions must address; leaving

dreams for last. TMCC is facing a crisis, and the in-

come is not expanding at the rate of the commitments

that are being placed on the institution. The quality

faculty members are feeling the same frustrations. Up-

on questioning, President Gwaltney stated that he was

in favor of some of the formulas for funding, but not

all of them. He felt that the Community Colleges are

continually losing when it comes to funding. There

are some built-in formulas that have been ignored in

the past, which he has brought to the attention of the

Chancellor's staff.

Mrs. Berkley returned to the meeting.

President Meacham stated that the current method of

funding contains several flaws, but he stated that this

budget process is the best it has ever been. He did not

feel that there was anything else to replace this proc-

ess. It is the only way that Community Colleges have a

chance of maturing. However, there are some inequities

that should be addressed, such as the differential rate

between the institutions. He has been given the ration-

ale that CCSN is a Community College, but he does not

think that that rationale is exact. He agrees with the

funding formulas, but CCSN should have the ability to

earn money accordingly. He did not think the Community

Colleges were allowed to earn on the same basis as the

Universities, and his institution is very frustrated.

He stated that the majority of growth was experienced

at CCSN, which only received 68% of the allocation. He

felt that good stewardship should have been acknowledged

but it was not. He does not want that mistake to happen

again, and requested that CCSN be given consideration so

it is not penalized in the future. CCSN cannot survive

on the recent method of allocation of funds.

Upon questioning, President Meacham explained that the

mistake made by the institutions was that the System

placed a mandate on its faculty and staff. Each insti-

tution was trying to keep pace with the other institu-

tions. The institutions thought it would have been

acknowledged, but it was not. The institutions placed

a heavy workload on its faculty and staff. He agreed

with President Gwaltney, that CCSN will not be managed

like that again. CCSN hired part-time personnel, and

have since then been penalized for it. CCSN consists

of 3 Campuses, and has had to reduce hours and person-

nel in student services. The institution is wearing

out its personnel. The environment is not the same.

Good stewardship is not being rewarded.

President Calabro stated that President Meacham's re-

marks hold true for WNCC and at all the institutions,

not just CCSN. There are fewer people to perform the

jobs with the same responsibilities. He stated that

there are some glitches in all the budgets, and that

line items which have to continue need to be corrected.

With regard to the previous discussion on the insti-

tutions' flexibility to transfer funds, he stated that

20% or less is available to transfer, and must be trans-

ferred very carefully because the next time the budget

is built the base budget will not reflect these trans-

fers. With regard to the Federal regulations, he re-

minded the Board that there are no resources for these

mandates. He stated that the funding formulas do allow

for a level playing field, but revisions are needed.

President Remington stated that he agreed with his

colleagues and added that non-state funds should be

discussed. The donors to the various foundations

usually have very specific requirements for their

donations, usually directed towards scholarships and

buildings. Buildings are in great need, but they pose

additional costs. Student scholarships are also very

important. However, the Board should keep in mind that

there are very few dollars for use at the institutions'

discretion. He stated that grant monies are very limit-

ed at the Community Colleges, and indirect dollars are

very small. So there really isn't much opportunity to

transfer funds. NNCC experienced a 35% enrollment

growth, but was not considered for any additional fund-

ing. There have been implied promises that have not

been met. Personnel is becoming very important and

crucial to the operation of the institution. Regard-

ing the strategic directions, NNCC is making progress

under difficult conditions and the Board should focus

on that element for progress.

President Taranik stated that the budget process is a

matter of timing. In the next 12 months, UCCSN will

approach the Legislature with its budget that is cur-

rently being constructed. This budget must be final-

ized by September 1 to be presented to the Governor.

UCCSN needs a much longer period of timing to plan a

budget if it is going to make changes to the process.

He suggested that the Board accept the funding formulas

as they currently stand, and in the meantime use the

formulas to effectively leverage UCCSN's position for


Mrs. Price left the meeting.

President Taranik stated that in the next legislative

session, the Board should lay the foundation for any

major changes with respect to the various budgets.

This will allow UCCSN 36 months to prepare and justify

the changes. Then, at the 1997 legislative session

these changes should be instigated. UCCSN needs to

surface its true needs to provide quality education

in Nevada.

Mrs. Price returned to the meeting.

Mr. Graves questioned whether there might be a better

budgeting system in the future, and President Taranik

responded that he was not in favor of changing the

formulas in respect to this upcoming legislative ses-

sion, but to hold to the current funding formulas and

then within the next 36 months UCCSN needs to look at

ways to bring on new programs while being creative.

The funding formulas will never catch the System up to

where they need to be, but they will gain some ground

during the next legislative session.

Dr. Derby stated that the discussion thus far has been

very refreshing. It has been determined that UCCSN

needs to get a sense of priorities, and to become more

creative with its restricted funding. She stated that

President Taranik's remarks were very encouraging.

UCCSN needs to look ahead and incorporate change as

priorities are established.

President Maxson stated that he was in favor of the

funding formulas. The funding formulas have taken

an uneven playing field and allowed equity between

the two Universities. He stated that the System can

budget for priorities, but that some items will be left

out of the appropriation. He stated that the real vil-

lain to the budget process is that of no actual money.

The System is continually broke. With regard to the

discussion on reallocation of funds within the insti-

tutions, it was a very small percentage that was trans-

ferred at UNLV. The State allocation to UNLV was 65%

and the Board of Regents controls the student fees and

tuition. At the time when the institutions were re-

quested to give back money, UNLV made reductions in the

finance area, which included having new buildings but

no custodians to maintain the buildings. He mentioned

that if there is an academic program at UNLV in which

its accreditating body requires more faculty, then UNLV

transfers funds to make those adjustments. The UNLV

Administration meets with its faculty to discuss these

issues and recognize the priorities with which the

institution must deal. He suggested that the Board of

Regents review this process. He expressed sympathy for

President Meacham, who took the hardest hit of all the

institutions. He reminded the Board that UNLV faculty

gave up a merit pay and utilized the savings to hire

part-time personnel. He did not think that this proc-

ess caused a ripple to any of its faculty. However,

there was not one positive editorial or accommodation

extended to UNLV's faculty. He stated that he was

appreciative to President Meacham for his remarks.

UNR Vice President for Finance and Administration Ashok

Dhingra stated that President Crowley had had at least

24 years of experience with budgets. He stated that

the members of the Board have, over the years, earned

an honorable doctorate degree in dealing with budgets.

However, the Board continues to discuss the budgets

abstractly and not in actual terms. The institutions

address every item that the Board of Regents have

discussed. He stated that he was in favor of the

funding formulas. Due to the way the formulas are

constructed, it does not give more funding to UNR, but

does give more funding to CCSN and UNLV, which have

experienced much growth. The formulas meet the needs

of the citizens of the State who wish to be educated.

He stated that it is a rational process. The strategic

directions are addressed when making allocations. The

institutions address exactly what the Board expresses.

Dr. Dhingra stated that each year the institutions

develop a budget plan that is shared with the faculty

and discussed by the Board of Regents. The funding

formulas help to outline the needs in the budget. Due

to the suspension of the formulas for this biennium,

the institutions were allocated less funding. During

the next year of this biennium, if the formulas were to

be funded, UNR would be allocated $75 million, which

would be distributed based on allocation of UNR's mis-

sion to meet the needs of programs, values and vision.

Each year, UNR spends much time to make certain that

accreditation needs, new programs, positions in pro-

grams, libraries, counselors, books, police officers,

academic advisors, etc. are addressed. This is how

UNR allocates its funds. UNR provides program budgets

and the Board of Regents approves the budgets. It is

an acquisition process that gets the institution its

funding. The formulas need refinement, but he believes

that they will work for funding higher education in


Mr. Graves indicated that there is a division among

the Board members with regard to the funding formulas

and changing the entire budget process. Every Presi-

dent has indicated support for the funding formulas,

even with its flaws and glitches. He suggested that

a list of problems with solutions be submitted to Vice

Chancellor Sparks for further discussion.

Vice Chancellor Sparks suggested that it may be time

to request another study of funding on higher educa-

tion. He reminded the Board that they cannot change

the process without the legislative and executive

branches' input. The Board may wish to include fund-

ing for another study in its next budget request.

Dr. Derby stated that she appreciated hearing from

Presidents on their view of the funding formulas. It

seems that there is more consensus on retaining the

formulas, but that they need refinement.

Mrs. Price stated that she had never felt that the for-

mulas were to be discarded, but that a change was to

be made to the budgeting process. She agreed that she

is trying to formulate a complete picture of the budget


Mr. Klaich indicated that he has been regarded as the

"Defender of the Formulas". He stated that he felt

that this role has been given to him because of the

"love it or leave it" attitude which Regent Foley has

indicated in the past. It is his understanding that

Regent Foley wishes to disband all the formulas in the

budget process and is very persuasive in his arguments.

Mr. Klaich stated that he does not wish to see the

formulas discarded, and he would argue to save them.

However, he stated that by no means are the formulas


Mr. Klaich explained his own frustrations with the

budget process and stated that approximately 3 1/2

months after the last biennial budget was passed the

reductions were made. Much to his amazement, after the

reductions it appeared to him that very little changed

at the institutions and he felt "duped" by the insti-

tutions who were crying "wolf". There were comments

made that these reductions were a temporary downturn

and that the State would soon be able to fund the

institutions appropriately. But there was more doom

and gloom that was expressed by the institutions. He

explained that UCCSN is in a different economic environ-

ment with dwindling resources. The institutions are

faced with Federal mandates that are not being funded,

while Federal programs are continually being reduced.

He felt that the System should look at the way it does

business and find out if it is going to work. The

present way of doing business is going to lead us to

the edge of a cliff, as President Meacham stated in

his remarks. Mr. Klaich stated that he was very moved

by what the Presidents expressed, but felt that they

were their own worst enemy. The Presidents need to

find out where the changes should come from and report

to the Board.

Mrs. Sparks stated that some of these budgets were re-

duced close to cataclysmic stages in order not to

sacrifice quality. The formulas have never been fully

funded; however, if they ever were, UCCSN would be

discussing this issue quite differently. The funds

would be used differently. She did not feel that the

Regents have been "duped" by the institutions. The

faculty and students have tried to maintain a level of

qualify for what the Board expects for the citizens of

the State. The formulas are not perfect, and will need

some changes, but it is the best process that UCCSN has

currently to operate. The formulas have never had a

chance to work. The Presidents did "bite the bullet"

and the System has performed admirably. The Legislature

has taxed UCCSN and the System did it without major dam-

age to higher education in Nevada. She did not feel

that UCCSN should have to go on like this.

Mrs. Gallagher agreed with Mr. Klaich in that all the

problems will not disappear. Adjustments need to be

made in higher education throughout the nation. She

agreed that UCCSN needs to look at different and better

ways of doing business. There is a possibility that

the System may have to cap enrollment and reduce pro-

grams in order to maintain quality. There needs to be

a real effort made to develop a better process. She

indicated that all national literature points to

changes that need to be made. UCCSN will have to

change the way it does business and the Board should

work with the Presidents and Chancellor's staff to

develop such changes. She did not feel it was a time

for doom and gloom, but a time for challenge and the

opportunity to be more innovative.

President Meacham stated that he needed to clarify Mr.

Klaich's remarks that the Board of Regents had been

"duped". The institutions have done their best to deal

with the reductions placed on the System. The institu-

tions are hurting and many personnal are becoming more

frustrated because of the overload of work. There is a

great deal of stress on the Campuses. He stated that he

has always stated that CCSN could handle this temporary

reduction, and he believed it to be temporary, but the

institutions cannot operate in this fashion much longer.

Mr. Klaich stated that his words were poorly chosen and

that he did agree with what President Meacham stated.

President Maxson stated that it is a new way of doing

business and that all states are going through this

process. He stated that if the institutions were to

have handled this situation in a dramatic sense, then

it would have been more of a shock therapy for the

Board. He reminded the Board that 80% of the budget

is allocated for salaries, and a reduction is to reduce

the number of personnel. Nevada is the fastest growing

state and when funding was reduced, the enrollment

flattened out. He indicated that CCSN was hurt the

worst when these reductions took place. Instead of

cutting programs, the institutions cut positions and

did not purchase any new equipment. These reductions

do not appear to the average person within one year.

There has not been any blood flowing on Maryland

Parkway, but this may have been a mistake, because now

there are fewer faculty and more students attending


Mrs. Berkley stated that her frustration level with

this budgeting process is not the same as President

Meacham's, but a tremendous sense of letting down her

own family and other Nevadans who wish to attend the

institutions of higher education in Nevada and to pro-

vide them with a good quality education. She stated

that she was looking forward to the upcoming Regents'

workshop, which she hopes will help her perform her

job effectively. She has an obligation to get the

budget process together and to make some tough deci-

sions for higher education.

President Gwaltney complimented the discussion and Mr.

Klaich's remarks. He relayed an incident at TMCC where

employees are submitting more sick leave forms for major

medical problems than in the past. The System is asking

them to give more and more and they are abusing their

own health to grapple with these issues.

Chairman Eardley stated that Board members are being

contacted all the time, and recently because of a pro-

gram that is being cut at UNR. The logic is reasonble

but it affects even the Board members. Mrs. Gallagher

stated that these are the tough decisions that the

System has to make and support.

15. Disapproved Allocation of Regents' Special Project Funds

Regent Lonnie Hammargren requested Board approval for an

allocation not exceeding $10,000 from the Regents' Special

Project Funds to the Desert Research Institute for the

purpose of leasing an earth globe and distributing educa-

tional materials to schools in Nevada.

Dr. Hammargren gave a short presentation of the Earthwinds

Outreach program. He requested approval for an allocation

of $5000 from the Regents' Special Project Funds, with the

remaining $5000 being solicited from the Nevada Space Grant


He explained that the Earthwinds flight is scheduled to

launch on January 9 or 10, 1994. He distributed to the

members of the Board a map for tracking the flight, lesson

plans, and general information. He suggested that every

classroom in Nevada receive this information. This project

will integrate K-16 students.

Mrs. Berkley questioned if students have been preparing for

this project and whether it was addressed in the Master

Plan. She stated that Regents' Special Project Funds are

to be used for special projects. She explained that she

would be voting against a proposed 2% merit increase for

Administrators later in the meeting, and she did not feel

comfortable in voting for the allocation.

ASTM President Don Isler stated that this is a worthwhile

project, but did not feel the Board of Regents should be

funding a project for K-12. He requested that the College

students' needs be addressed before aiding K-12.

Mrs. Berkley suggested that this issue be brought before

the Academic Research and Student Affairs Committee for

further review.

No motion was made.

16. Distinguished Nevadan Nominations and the Nevada Open

Meeting Law

Nominees for Distinguished Nevadans are discussed in closed

meetings of the Board of Regents. Under amendments to the

Nevada Open Meeting Law, persons who are to be discussed in

closed meetings of a public body must be given written no-

tice that they will be discussed in a closed meeting either

by certified mail at least 21 working days or by personal

notice at least 5 working days before the closed meeting.

Interim Chancellor Richardson requested consideration of

this fact because of the possible problems such notice may

have on the Board's subsequent relations with potential


Interim Chancellor Richardson stated that in the past a

number of nominations have been forwarded for consideration

in awarding only a few nominees. Under the Nevada Open

Meeting Law nominees must be made aware that the Board of

Regents would be discussing them during a closed session.

He felt that those not chosen may be offended and felt

this item should be addressed by the Board of Regents prior

to a scheduled closed session at the Febrary meeting.

General Counsel Klasic stated that this issue has been

raised by a President, and it was suggested that UCCSN

address the Nevada State Legislature to make an exception

to this law. However, the Legislature does not meet until

1995. He stated two options for the Board of Regents: 1)

not make any award this year, or 2) abide by the Nevada

Open Meeting Law and alert the nominees of the closed


Mrs. Price suggested that UCCSN seek an Attorney General's

opinion. Although she agreed with the Attorney General's

recent opinion regarding the Chancellor's Search applica-

tions, she felt that this situation is a selection process

for an award, not an operation of the University System,

or involvement of System employees, or perspective employ-


General Counsel Klasic responded that he did not feel the

Attorney General's office would review its most recent

decision. The Nevada Open Meeting Law is very clear on

its requirements.

Mr. Graves stated that he did not see a problem with inform-

ing the nominees of the Nevada Open Meeting Law. He felt

that it would be a honor just to be nominated for such an

award. Mrs. Berkley agreed and requested that the letter

be congenial and congratulatory.

President Maxson stated that he did not wish to see this

long-standing process discontinued. These awards are the

only time the Board of Regents recognizes those special

persons. He suggested that the policy to carry names for-

ward be continued this year with a letter sent to those

nominated, and that the institutions restrict the number

of nominations submitted to the Board of Regents' Office.

In the past the number of nominations did not matter, but

he felt that the lists should be narrowed down this time.

He suggested that the letter indicate that if not chosen

this year, they would be considered in the future.

Mrs. Sparks suggested that the Board seek cooperation from

the media regarding this process. If the nominations are

made public it could cause problems for those persons not

chosen for these awards. She did not feel this was some-

thing for the media to take lightly. The Board should make

this situation as fair as possible for those nominated.

Mrs. Gallagher stated that the Distinguished Nevadan award

has always been awarded by the Board of Regents, while the

Honorary Degrees are awarded by the institutions. She sug-

gested that the Board of Regents make its own award distinct

from the institution award. President Maxson requested that

the institutions do the screening of nominations prior to

the selection by the Board of Regents. Mrs. Gallagher

clearly stated that the Distinguished Nevadan award should

be awarded by the Board, and the Honorary Degrees awarded

by the institutions.

Dr. Derby questioned the validity of President Maxson's

suggestion with regard to the letter to nominees stating

that if not awarded this year, they may be considered in

the future. She did not want to be obligated to honor this

statement year after year. Dr. Derby agreed that the Board

of Regents needs to bring this situation before the next

legislative session for consideration.

Mrs. Price suggested that the members of the Board of Re-

gents whose terms are ending this year make the selection

of awardees for this year. This process would give all

11 members an opportunity to make the selection. Mrs.

Sparks pointed out that retiring members of the Board

are allowed to submit nominations, and if performing the

selection other nominations would be at a disadvantage.

She felt that if this process is adopted, as an on-going

member, she would feel slighted and would consider this

award a "Retiring Regents Award".

Mr. Klaich moved approval that all nominees for awards for

this year be returned to the institutions for review and

resubmitted to the Board of Regents' Office, and that the

Board of Regents comply with the Nevada Open Meeting Law

which requires that the nominees be notified that they

will be discussed in a closed session. Mrs. Sparks


Mrs. Berkley suggested that the letters to be sent to the

nominees allow them the opportunity to withdraw from being


Mrs. Gallagher voted no. Motion carried.

General Counsel Klasic was directed to prepare a bill draft

at the appropriate time for reconsideration by the Legis-

lature of the Nevada Open Meeting Law.

17. Approved an Emergency Item: Chancellor's Search

Late afternoon on January 3, 1994, the Chancellor's Office

received a copy of an opinion of the Attorney General con-

cerning making the Chancellor's position applications

public. Because this may affect the search process and

because the Board of Regents will not meet again before the

February 3, 1994 meeting of the Board's ad hoc Chancellor

Search Committee, discussion of the Attorney General's

opinion is necessary at this meeting in order to allow the

Board to give instructions, if any, to the Committee.

Mr. Klaich moved to accept the Emergency Item regarding the

Chancellor's Search. Mrs. Whitley seconded. Motion car-


18. Chancellor's Search

Discussion of status of search to fill the position of

Chancellor of UCCSN was held. Chairman of the ad hoc Chan-

cellor Search Committee Madison Graves reported that the

media has been very concerned with this search and stated

in a news release that only 17 applications had been filed.

He officially reported that the Committee has received 57

applications and 12 nominations. There are some very quali-

fied persons to be considered.

The selection of a new Chancellor is inevitable; however,

in light of Nevada's Open Meeting Law, the Committee has

some issues it needs to address before proceeding with the

search process. As Chairman of the Committee, he has di-

rected staff to notify the applicants that they would be

discussed at the Committee's February meetings. He has

cancelled the January meetings, due to the 21-day notifi-

cation requirement.

In addition to the requirements of the Nevada Open Meeting

Law, the Las Vegas Sun has compelled the Committee to seek

a ruling by the Attorney General on the issue of releasing

the names of the applicants to the public. The Attorney

General rendered an opinion as of 3:00 P.M., January 3, 1994

in that the applications would be made public. At that time

Mr. Graves spoke with General Counsel Klasic regarding the

opinion, and General Counsel Klasic offered that the Attor-

ney General's opinion is law. As Chairman, he directed the

staff to add the following paragraphs to the notification

letter to the applicants:

This is to also notify you that, in response to a news

media request for an opinion, the Nevada Attorney Gen-

eral has held that all applications for the position

of Chancellor must be made available for inspection

by the public. The Attorney General also advised that

applicants who may not have been aware that their ap-

plications would be made public should be notified of

this and be given the opportunity to withdraw their

applications before they were made public.

Therefore, please be advised that unless you notify me

in writing by mail or facsimile (702-784-1127) by no

later than January 21, 1994 that you wish to withdraw

your application for the position of Chancellor of the

University and Community College System of Nevada, your

application will be made available for public inspec-

tion under the Nevada Open Meeting Law.

He stated that he personally felt that the letter should be

conservative; however, he did not agree with this process

that has been put upon this Committee. He felt that this

will endanger the top applicants for this search and all

other searches to be held in the future. However, he

stated that he did not feel that he was above the law.

He offered the following solutions:

1) the Search Committee could abort the search for the

Chancellor's position and continue with the Interim

Chancellor. In the meantime, the Board of Regents

should lobby the next legislative session to have

the Nevada Open Meeting Law reconsidered;

2) the Search Committee be instructed to comply with

the Nevada Open Meeting Law and notify all appli-

cants that their names would be made public; or

3) the Search Committee ignore the Attorney General's

opinion, which would then place the Board of Regents

in violation of the law and possibly be served with

a law suit.

From these 3 solutions, Mr. Graves recommended that the

Search Committee be instructed to comply with the Nevada

Open Meeting Law and notify all applicants that their names

would be made public.

He stated that he was aware that some of the Committee mem-

bers have expressed that he, as Chairman, had overstepped

his boundaries in reacting to the Attorney General's opinion

without bringing this issue before the full Board of Regents

for advice and direction.

Mrs. Gallagher stated that she thought Mr. Graves acted ap-

propriately. She did not feel that the Board of Regents

has a choice in going against the opinion of the Attorney

General. She suggested that the ad hoc Chancellor Search

Committee continue with the search process; however, if

many or all top candidates should decide to withdraw, then

the Committee will need to reconsider the process.

Mrs. Berkley stated that this is an item worth fighting for

with the Attorney General. She agreed with Mr. Graves, but

felt that if the Search Committee loses one candidate, one

is too many. She informed the Board that there have been

Attorney General's opinions that have been overturned by

the court system. She felt that if a law suit is forth-

coming, then so be it. General Counsel Klasic would be able

to handle the law suit. She felt that it would be wrong if

the Board of Regents did not choose to fight this issue.

Dr. Derby requested General Counsel Klasic to respond to

the law, in that it was her understanding the law was not

intended to affect searches.

General Counsel Klasic stated that there is not a Nevada

court opinion on this particular matter. What Nevada courts

have said in the past is to look to a "balancing test" --

to the public's interest vs. the government in the right to

know. There are several law cases that are split on this

issue. He referenced a case out of Arizona, which also was

quoted in the Nevada Attorney General's opinion, whereas

the initial process of the search be kept confidential, but

release the names of the finalists. There seems to be an

interest when the applicant pool is narrowed to a few.

Other cases have stated that the public always has the right

to know, and that applicants should have thick skin if ap-

plying for a public position. However, the recent trend

is towards the Nevada Attorney General's opinion, in that

all names be made public. General Counsel Klasic did not

feel that there was sufficient amount of time to make a

study of this opinion.

General Counsel Klasic did feel that the Board of Regents

would have a case if they should decide to not comply with

the Attorney General's opinion, but cautioned the Board that

the Nevada Supreme Court has a very liberal view towards the

sunshine laws. The Nevada Supreme Court has upheld the Open

Meeting Law and has overridden the attorney/client privi-

lege. He felt that the Board of Regents would have a slim

chance in winning the law suit.

General Counsel Klasic stated that during his conversation

with Assistant Attorney General Brooke Nielson, it was

pointed out in regard to the Arizona case, there was a

detrimental affect on the applicant pool when the names

were released. Although, in other cases there was not a

problem. There is no guarantee that applicants would re-

main or withdraw. He stated that if the Search Committee

loses too many candidates, as the Arizona case did, then

it was suggested that the Committee reconsider the process.

Mr. Graves requested clarification of the conversation be-

tween General Counsel Klasic and Assistant Attorney General

Nielson. It was his understanding that she said that if

UCCSN had a significant number of applicants withdraw, not

just the top five candidates, then it should be reconsider-

ed. General Counsel Klasic confirmed that conversation,

but noted he agreed with Regent Gallagher that a case could

be made on the issue of quality vs. quantity.

Mrs. Berkley stated that she felt this issue is dealing with

academia, not a public office. Academic credentials are

being considered and that the Chancellor's position is not

one that is in the public's eye, such as City Managers, etc.

Mr. Klaich left the meeting.

Mrs. Berkley suggested that the Board of Regents discuss

this issue with the editorial boards throughout the State.

She had requested Secretary Moser to research information

on this issue, and Mrs. Berkley stated that there are some

incredible cases regarding this very issue. This issue is

a disservice to the System and to the candidates.

Mr. Klaich returned to the meeting.

Mrs. Price stated that she did not agree with the discussion

that was being held. She stated that she was in agreement

with the Attorney General's opinion. Applicants must recog-

nize that government is different than the private sector

and sacrifices must be made if applying for such positions.

Mrs. Gallagher requested clarification on how the Board of

Regents intended to "fight" the Attorney General's opinion

and what the time frame should be. If the Board of Regents

chooses to ignore the opinion and continue with the search,

and a law suit is filed in which UCCSN loses the case, then

where does that leave the search process? Is the search

aborted, or is the Chancellor hired illegally?

General Counsel Klasic responded that if a law suit was

filed against UCCSN, any case that deals with the Nevada

Open Meeting Law receives priority on the court calendar

and it would be heard before the Search Committee would

make its decision.

Dr. Derby requested advice from Interim Chancellor

Richardson and General Counsel Klasic.

General Counsel Klasic reported that the letters have al-

ready been sent to each applicant stating the process. The

Search Committee is now in a position to see if candidates

will choose to withdraw or not. If a number of candidates

do choose to withdraw, then the Board of Regents can ap-

proach the Attorney General with this information, and the

search should then be aborted.

Mrs. Gallagher cautioned the Search Committee to not settle

for a less qualified person, just because qualified persons

have withdrawn. She suggested that the search be aborted

if it comes to that scenario.

Mrs. Berkley suggested that another letter be sent to the

applicants explaining the dilemna which the Board of Regents

is facing.

In response to Dr. Derby's request for advice, Interim

Chancellor Richardson suggested that the Regents poll its

Presidents to see if they would apply for such a position

under these conditions. He reflected on his earlier career

when he was subject to an open search process. Based on

his previous experience, he stated that he would never be

a candidate in an open search again. He clarified that he

did not have anything to hide, but the exposure with his

young family was not fair. He felt that General Counsel

Klasic gave the correct advice -- the courts have decided

both ways. He felt that governing boards have the right

to conduct searches, but must conduct the search in ac-

cordance with the law. These laws differ from state to

state. He recommended fighting against the law, not only

for this present search, but for future searches to be

conducted by UCCSN. He has seen searches where the media

conducts the search and investigates the applicants by

contacting the applicant's home town, Legislators and other

viable persons. He stated that he does believe in open

governance, but also believes in protecting himself.

General Counsel Klasic suggested that the Search Committee

play out the process and see what the candidates choose to

do with Nevada's law. This may help with establishing a

case against the Nevada Open Meeting Law, but it may also

become a disadvantage to this current search process.

There is a chance that UCCSN may not be in violation of

the law, but at this point it is unsure on how the courts

would decide this particular case.

Mr. Klaich moved to ratify the action taken by Regent

Madison Graves and proceed with the search subject to re-

view at the next Board of Regents' meeting regarding the

effect the letter to the applicants has taken, whether it

be quality and/or quantity. Mrs. Whitley seconded.

Mrs. Gallagher requested clarification on the motion. Mr.

Graves stated that it gives the Search Committee the author-

ity to abort the search process. Mr. Klaich explained that

the motion does not say that the Board of Regents should

seek a law suit, but to comply with the letter sent by the

Chairman of the Search Committee and make the applications

public after the stated date in the letter.

Mrs. Berkley stated that she completely opposed this motion.

The issue is fundamental to the search process. Names must

be kept confidential, and she strongly disagrees with the

Attorney General's opinion. She felt the Board should

challenge this opinion.

Dr. Derby suggested that a special meeting be scheduled.

Mr. Klaich agreed, but added that this is not the only

search that will be conducted by this Board and the con-

fidential process should be fought for.

It was suggested that a special meeting be scheduled for

Friday, January 21, or Saturday, January 22, and that the

Secretary of the Board and the Interim Chancellor monitor

the withdrawals.

Mr. Graves questioned what good a meeting would do at this

point in time.

Mrs. Berkley stated that she was in opposition to an open

search. This is one of the most important searches that

this Board will ever be faced with.

In response to Mr. Graves' question, Mr. Klaich stated

that the special meeting would allow the Board of Regents

to abort the search and retain the Interim Chancellor for

an extended period. The results from the letter sent by

Chairman Graves may enlighten the Attorney General's opin-


Affirmative votes: Regents Gallagher, Graves, Klaich,

Hammargren, Price, Sparks, Whitley

Negative vote : Regent Berkley

Motion carried.

As a point of order, Mrs. Price indicated that she would be

unavailable for the next 8 weeks, and stated that she is

not in favor of fighting this case.

19. Approved FY 94 Merit Increases for Administrators

At its October 1993 meeting, the Board approved granting

merit increases retroactive to July 1993 to Associate Deans

and above and to other personnel reporting to the Chancellor

or a President not considered for a merit increase earlier

this fiscal year. In accordance with Board of Regents

policy, Interim Chancellor Richardson presented the follow-

ing recommendation for merit increases for Chancellor's

Office staff:

2% 1993-94

Current Merit Total

Salary Increase Salary

Chancellor's Office

Sue Baker $ 35,706 $ 714 $ 36,402

Doug Burris 114,200 2,284 116,484

Pamela Galloway 51,519* 1,030 52,549

Donald Klasic 86,650 1,733 88,383

Mary Lou Moser 65,629 1,312 66,941

Thomas Radko 62,845 1,257 64,102

Ron Sparks 102,787 2,056 104,843

Karen Steinberg 84,000* 1,680 85,680

Donald Zitter 84,407 1,688 86,095

* P. Galloway voluntarily reduced to .95 FTE. Actual

salary - $49,157

K. Steinberg voluntarily reduced to .90 FTE. Actual

salary - $76,300

Interim Chancellor Richardson recommended that these salary

increases be retroactive to July 1, 1993.

Mr. Klaich moved approval of the 2% merit increase for

Administrators, retroactive to July 1, 1993. Mrs. Gallagher


Mr. Klaich clarified his position on this issue by stating

that at the December meeting he voted against this merit

increase for Administrators. Interim Chancellor Richardson

has since explained his rationale for the increase and was

very persuasive. Interim Chancellor Richardson has an-

nounced that he would not be applying for the permanent

Chancellor's position. He has had limited time in his

capacity as Interim Chancellor and will return to the

position of Vice Chancellor for Academic and Student Af-

fairs. A strong message has been sent to the Presidents

that the Board of Regents expects merit increases to be

carefully reflected upon and not made across the board.

The UCCSN is under strained financial circumstances. Mr.

Klaich stated that he was prepared to reverse his position

and support the Interim Chancellor's recommendation.

Dr. Derby stated that she did not support the motion. She

stated that UCCSN is very fortunate to have an Interim

Chancellor such as John Richardson who is very wise and ex-

perienced. She believed that he did make his very best

judgement in recommending this merit increase. However,

she disagreed with the recommendation in light of the dif-

ficult financial times UCCSN is experiencing. It is not

business as usual. She felt that UCCSN has denied students

access to classes because of the well-paid Administrators.

It is an easy approach to award across the board merit in-

creases and she understands that it is a tough decision to

make, but one that should be made in accordance with per-

formance. She felt that this current situation was dif-

ferent and unique because of the short period of time the

Interim Chancellor has served in this capacity.

Mrs. Price questioned how merit is applied and if it has

ever been discussed by the Board. It was explained that

the institutions have autonomy in awarding merit.

Affirmative votes: Regents Gallagher, Klaich, Price,

Sparks, Whitley, Eardley

Negative votes : Regents Berkley, Derby, Graves

Motion carried.

Mrs. Price reserved the right to make corrections to the Decem-

ber 2-3, 1993 Board of Regents' minutes because she has not yet

reviewed them.

The meeting adjourned at 6:23 P.M.

Mary Lou Moser

Secretary of the Board