January 6-7, 1994
BOARD OF REGENTS
UNIVERSITY AND COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM OF NEVADA
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
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-
Chairman Eardley requested that annual reports on salaries
for Deans and above be made at an open meeting of the Board
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
Northern Nevada Community College
Bret J. Murphy
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
Northern Nevada Community College
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
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
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
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
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
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
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-
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
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
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
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
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
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-
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
UNR or UNLV.
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
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-
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
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.
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
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
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
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-
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
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
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
(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-
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
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
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
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
Opening Account Balance $ 0
Sales & Service 153,230
Total Source of Funds $ 153,230
Classified Salaries $ 30,355
Fringe Benefits 8,803
Fringe Benefits 1,573
Total Expenditures $ 153,230
Ending Account Balance $ 0
Total Use of Funds $ 153,230
C. Cooperative Extension, Southern Area, UNR
Cooperative Extension/Southern Area
Opening Account Balance $ 0
Misc: USDA-WIC 30,000
Total Source of Funds $ 30,000
Classified Salaries $ 16,667
Fringe Benefits 4,333
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
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
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
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
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
No motion was made.
16. Distinguished Nevadan Nominations and the Nevada Open
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
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-
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
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
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
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
Current Merit Total
Salary Increase Salary
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
Mrs. Price reserved the right to make corrections to the Decem-
ber 2-3, 1993 Board of Regents' minutes because she has not yet
The meeting adjourned at 6:23 P.M.
Mary Lou Moser
Secretary of the Board