January 7-8, 1971
1-07-1971
Pages 126-153
BOARD OF REGENTS
UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA SYSTEM
January 7-8, 1971
The Board of Regents met on the above dates in the Donald C.
Moyer Campus Student Union, University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
Members present: Fred M. Anderson, M. D.
Mr. James H. Bilbray
Mr. Archie C. Grant
Mr. Procter Hug, Jr.
Mr. Harold Jacobsen
Mrs. William Knudtsen
Louis Lombardi, M. D.
Mr. Paul Mc Dermott
Mr. William Morris
Mr. Mel Steninger
Miss Helen R. Thompson
Others present: Chancellor Neil D. Humphrey
President N. Edd Miller, UNR
President R. J. Zorn, UNLV
Director Charles R. Donnelly, CCD
Director John M. Ward, DRI
Vice President Donald H. Baepler, UNLV
Vice President James T. Anderson, UNR
Deputy Attorney General Gene Barbagelata
Mr. Edward L. Pine, Business Manager, UNR
Mr. Herman Westfall, Business Manager, UNLV
Mr. Edward Olsen, Director of Information, UNR
Mr. Mark Hughes, Director of Information, UNLV
Dr. Don Fowler, Faculty Senate Chairman, DRI
Dr. John Vergiels, Faculty Senate Chairman,
UNLV
Miss Frankie Sue Del Papa, ASUN President
Mr. Richard Myers, CSUN President
The meeting was called to order on Thursday, January 7, 1971, by
Chairman Hug at 5:02 P.M.
Mr. Hug stated that he did not wish to seek re-election to the
office of Chairman. He expressed appreciation for the oppor-
tunity to serve during the past two years and for the coopera-
tion he had received from Regents, the officers of the Univer-
sity and from faculty and student representatives. Mr. Hug
noted the lessening of tensions between the north and south
and the harmony which is evident among the four Divisions. He
said he believed the four Divisions were working together very
smoothly, due, he added, to the very hard work by everyone con-
cerned to effect this kind of progress.
Mr. Hug called for nominations for Chairman.
Mr. Grant nominated Mr. Harold Jacobsen for the Office of Chair-
man. Dr. Lombardi seconded the nomination.
There being no further nominations, Mr. Hug ordered the nomina-
tions closed and instructed the Secretary to cast a unanimous
ballot for Mr. Jacobsen.
Mr. Hug called for nominations for Vice Chairman.
Dr. Lombardi nominated Mr. Paul Mc Dermott for the Office of
Vice Chairman. Dr. Anderson seconded the nomination.
There being no further nominations, Mr. Hug ordered the nomina-
tions closed and instructed the Secretary to cast a unanimous
ballot for Mr. Mc Dermott.
Chancellor Humphrey recommended that Mrs. Bonnie Smotony be
elected Secretary of the Board.
Motion by Dr. Lombardi, seconded by Mr. Jacobsen, carried unani-
mously that Mrs. Smotony be elected Secretary of the Board.
Mr. Jacobsen assumed the Chair and made the following statement:
"I recognize that this is a great honor and approach it certain-
ly with a degree of apprehension and yet eagerly looking forward
to the challenge.
"Our responsibility is clearly set out in the Constitution of
the State of Nevada. We are responsibile for all education
beyond the high school level.
"We have in the past delegated our authority to the Chancellor,
to the Presidents of the two sister Universities, to the Di-
rector of DRI and to the Director of Community Colleges. This
delegation of authority continues downward to anyone given ad-
ministrative assignments.
"During my tenure of office, I shall insist that not only do we
delegate authority but also the responsibility that goes with it.
I cannot see us as being involved in administrative decisions,
so long as they are responsible and representative of the think-
ing of this Board of Regents. When they are not, I feel that it
is our duty to relieve the particular Administrator of his
duties.
"I believe that I and the other members of this Board have been
receptive to new ideas, many of which have become the policy of
the University System. On the other hand, we have not always
gone along with recommendations and have at times not changed
our position.
"I see the Regents Handbook as a living document. We live by
policies as they are set out but we recognize that they are
imperfect and we will change if we can be shown that change is
necessary.
"I am for change if needed and indicated, but I am not for
change just for sake of change.
"I appreciate this great challenge and the responsibility you
have given me. I look to the other Regents, the Administra-
tion, the faculty and students and the people of the State of
Nevada for new ideas and support of this University System.
"I believe that one must insist on academic integrity in our
teachers. This includes such virtues as judgment based on
facts, honesty, responsibility and knowledge and love of their
subjects, rational behavior, and pride in our Universities and
all that they stand for.
"I believe that we have the responsibility to provide facilities
and people capable of offering a first class education beyond
the High School level. This includes all of our young people;
those who seek the academic degrees and those who seek the as-
sociate degrees.
"The University System is for our young people -- it should pro-
vide the kind of education that best fits their needs. I be-
lieve that we must hear these young people, we should encourage
them to tell us what they are thinking. We should make every
effort to improve communication both ways.
"We must insist, however, that students recognize the rights of
others -- that they recognize what a great privilege they have
in being one of our students. They must recognize that they
have a very special right to a high education. That the right
exists because of our respect for the rights of others.
"In conclusion, I want to thank you all for your confidence in
me. I know that I follow 3 outstanding men, Mr. Grant, Dr.
Anderson and Mr. Hug. I am privileged to have you all still
on the Board. I shall look to everyone concerned, students,
faculty, citizens and Regents for ideas and support in the
years ahead."
Dr. Anderson moved that the Board of Regents go on record in ex-
pressing appreciation to Mr. Hug for his leadership during the
past 2 years as Chairman of the Board and that an appropriate
resolution be prepared for adoption by the Board at its next
meeting. Motion seconded by Mrs. Knudtsen, carried unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 5:25 P.M.
The Board of Regents reconvened in regular session on Friday,
January 8, 1971 at 9:05 A.M. under the Chairmanship of Mr.
Jacobsen. All Regents and officers were present except Mr. Hug.
1. Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the regular session of December 11-12, 1970
were submitted for approval.
Dr. Lombardi moved that the minutes of the regular session
be amended to reflect the actions of the Board in Executive
Session in December in the matter of Dr. Paul Adamian.
Dr. Lombardi spoke in support of his motion by pointing out
that there has been much conjecture and discussion con-
cerning the Board's action. There has, he said, also been
a great deal of misquoting of the facts and he believed it
important that the record be clarified. He requested that
it be made a matter of public record that 8 of the 9 Regents
present in December had voted for dismissal of Dr. Adamian
and that Regent Bilbray had cast the only dissenting vote.
Mr. Mc Dermott questioned whether or not it would be per-
missable to make it a matter of public information since
the action was taken in Executive Session. He requested
an opinion from the Deputy Attorney General. Mr.
Barbagelata suggested that disclosure of matter considered
in Executive Session would be at the discretion of the
Board.
Dr. Lombardi's motion was seconed by Dr. Anderson, and
carried without dissent.
2. State Plan for Community Colleges in Nevada
Director Donnelly noted that the State Plan for Community
Colleges in Nevada had been distributed to the Board prior
to its meeting in December and preliminary discussion had
been held at that time. Subsequently, the Plan had also
been discussed with members of the Advisory Committees
for the Elko Community College and for the proposed Com-
munity Colleges in Western Nevada and Clark County. In
presenting the State Plan a second time, Dr. Donnelly made
the following statement:
I am pleased to present the first phase of our State
Plan for Community Colleges in the State of Nevada for
your adoption. This plan has been reviewed by Advisory
Committees in Clark County, Western Nevada and Elko and
the Elko Community College faculty. We have also re-
ceived many other comments, some of which I would like
to comment on now.
A month ago I said that I hoped that this plan would
result in the elimination of many false rumors, mis-
understandings, and distortions concerning the Com-
munity College Program in the State of Nevada. Ap-
parently it has not done that and I would like to now
answer some of the points raised by many who appear to
be still uninformed about Community Colleges and what
they can do.
I want you to know that this report was not compiled by
amateurs in Community College work. I came here last
June after 24 years experience in Community Colleges.
For 6 years I served as President of a Community College
larger than any University in this State and one recog-
nized nationally as one of the nation's best. This
College had 19 modern buildings that cost over $30 mil-
lion. Almost half of these were built during that 6
year period. Enrollment increased 70% during that
period and it led the State in vocational-technical
programs, actually increasing the number of students
in these programs from 20% of the total College en-
rollment to 50%. Its community service program is
looked upon as a model throughout the world. Not only
did we have visitors who wished our advice from all
parts of this country, but also from all over the
world. Its student personnel programs have been copied
by most Community Colleges because of their emphasis
upon students, their activities, financial aids, coun-
seling and developmental programs.
A Curriculum Specialist, Leon Van Doren, helped prepare
this report. He has wide experience in different Com-
munity Colleges in Washington, Oregon and Hawaii as a
Community College graduate, an Instructor, a Department
Chairman, an Assistant Dean of Instruction and a Dean
of Instruction. His last position in Hawaii was a
position in the only State with an organization like
that in the State of Nevada.
My experience as President of a large State association,
as a member of several Statewide committees, especially
accrediting teams, and as a consultant in several states
initiating Community Colleges has helped immensely in
preparing this report.
It was stated that the Community College Director would
have to work closely with public school officials,
State Department officials, and University officials.
Working with these groups was no new experience since
our College in Michigan was a part of a public school
district. On several occasions I was the Community
College representative for 29 Community Colleges on
State Department committees, such as tenure, curriculum
and community service. The University of Michigan had
a branch College on our Campus sharing the same library
and in many cases with students a part of both Colleges.
I mention all these things because it was also pointed
out in a position paper that it was essential to look
to the Community College Director for the details of
planning the development of a State System of Community
Colleges with the advice of the Chancellor and the Board
of Regents. The statements made by some indicate that
at least some people would prefer to look to others who
may be newspaper experts or educators skilled in other
areas, but who have little knowledge of Community
Colleges.
Whenever individuals have discussed this report in
person, we have reached agreements. However, I am
disappointed to see that others have chosen newspapers,
radio, television and public officials as the media
for their disagreements with the report. I had really
expected more courtesy than that. I refer to comments
regarding duplication of programs, costs, quality of
programs, and place of programs.
I suggested in my remarks to you a month ago that a
major factor in all of our discussions has been that
the Community College Division does not want duplica-
tion of programs. The report does say that eventually
all 2-year programs of a post-secondary technical nature
should be phased into the Community College. Priorities
are now being established, but if a program is continued
by either the University or the county schools then the
Community College will not operate such a program.
It has also been stated that the Community College pro-
grams would cost more to the taxpayer than if the pro-
grams were continued at the University. An analysis
of budgets and faculty loads does not show this con-
clusion. 2-year programs have cost from $2400 to $3600
per FTE student at the University compared to a budget
estimate of $1300 at the Community College. A Community
College differs from a University in that it is a teach-
ing institution whereas a University is a teaching and
research institution. Therefore, the teaching loads
will be much higher at a Community College, making for
lower costs.
There has been considerable misunderstanding of the
open door policy of a Community College and the result-
ant fear that the quality of the current programs might
be degraded. Open door means that all high school
graduates or persons over the age of 18 who can profit
from instruction offered will be admitted. However,
admission only gets the student through the door.
Courses and curriculums are not open door and the
strong guidance and counseling system assists the
students in getting enrolled in the proper programs
and courses. Thus, the entrance requirements for
particular programs are not lowered, nor is the quality.
As a matter of fact, the Community College Division
will insist upon all instructors in University parallel
programs and in occupational programs insofar as pos-
sible having a Master's degree in the subject in which
they teach and also considerable teaching experience.
Experience in a particular occupation may be substituted
for the degree but this does not lessen the quality of
instruction.
Another major criticism of the report states that
Community Colleges are not needed in the Reno and Las
Vegas areas. Statements such as these show little
understanding of the role of a comprehensive Community
College. We need Community Colleges in the Reno and
Las Vegas areas because a Community College is essen-
tially a commuter College and must be accessible to
the majority of people. In the Reno and Las Vegas
areas are where over 80% of the people in the State
live. Over 4500 of the 6000 students who will graduate
from high school in 1971 are from these areas. It is
only in these areas that there are sufficient numbers
of students to enable a Community College to develop
vocational-technical programs at a minimum cost to
the State. There should be no conflict with the two
Universities in these areas because the Universities
and Community Colleges serve different purposes. The
Community College concentrates on occupational educa-
tion preparing students for semi-professional and
semi-skilled jobs whereas the Universities concentrate
on preparing students for professional positions and
graduate training. If Community Colleges are estab-
lished specifically suited to middle manpower educa-
tion, then the Universities will be free to concen-
trate on the important task uniquely reserved for
them -- a University education. There are several
places in this country in almost every State where a
Community College and University exist in the same
city, some even on the same Campus, and both thrive
because they compliment each other -- the University
serving the professionally oriented student and the
Community College the semi-professionally oriented
student. Seattle, Washington; Eugene and Portland,
Oregon; Honolulu, Hawaii; and Phoenix, Arizona are
among the cities of this type in the western states.
The Community College also intends to serve the rural
areas of the State by making its services available
in every city of the State if the need arises. Again,
the emphasis here would be upon providing vocational-
technical courses to fit the needs of each area. By
using qualified faculty in these areas, the Community
College can offer these courses at the minimum cost to
the State and still enable students to get a higher
education in their home community even though it may
take longer than 2 years to complete a program. The
courses and programs will follow the middle manpower
needs of each individual community. However, because
of the small number of students involved in these
communities, existing facilities can be used.
We need Community Colleges to serve that segment of
the population not now being served by the University.
About half of the approximately 6000 students who will
graduate from high school this year cannot qualify
for regular admission to the Universities, and even
of the half that do qualify, on the basis of past
experience, almost half of these will probably fail.
A Community College is needed to serve these people
to help prepare them for jobs so that they can be
useful citizens.
A national consulting firm is now in the process of
providing facts and figures for possible site loca-
tions. This study builds upon the demographic studies
currently being done by the Higher Educational Advisory
Committee. A complete recommendation on possible sites
will be presented to the Board of Regents in February.
One final criticism has been the lowering of prestige
if a program is transferred to the Community College.
It shouldn't be necessary to remind everyone that the
Community College Division is a part of the University
of Nevada System and any degree or certificate it pre-
sents is presented by the University of Nevada with the
full authority of the Board of Regents and consequently
should carry the same prestige. This would follow
closely the comments of John Gardner whose are included
in the report on pages 90 and 91.
There are 3 major revisions in the report, as well as
several minor ones. These are included in the report
being handed to you now. (Report filed with permanent
minutes.) Also included in this is a list of major
items that passage of this plan would entail.
In my humble opinion, the action you take today could be
one of the most significant actions ever passed by this
Board, whereby passing this State Plan you will be
leading the way for the establishment of a Statewide
education system designed to permit all of the people
of this State to partake of higher education, regard-
less of age, grade point average or family wealth.
Chancellor Humphrey stated that he endorsed the State Plan
as submitted by Dr. Donnelly and as suggested for amend-
ment and recommended its adoption as amended. He submitted
the following recommendations concerning the transfer of
certificate and associate degree programs from UNR and UNLV
to the Community College Division.
Director President Chancellor
Donnelly's Miller's Humphrey's
Recommend. Recommend. Recommend.
UNR
Ag. Air Service N N N
Ag. Marketing Tech. N N N
Ag. Mechnics N N N
Farm & Ranch Mgmt. N N N
Park & Turf Mgmt. N N N
Fashion Trades Y N? N
Food Service Mgmt. Y N? Y
Prekindergarten Educ. Y N? N
Nursing Y Y Y
Business Tech. Y Y Y
Office Admin. Y Y Y
Law Enforcement Y N 4 '73 Y
Radiological Tech Y Y Y
Elec. Eng. Tech. Y N 4 '73 Y
Eng. Design Tech. Y N 4 '73 Y
Director President Chancellor
Donnelly's Zorn's Humphrey's
Recommend. Recommend. Recommend.
UNLV
Fire Science Y Y Y
Office Admin. Y Y Y
Design Tech. Y Y Y
Electronics Tech. Y (D) Y (D) Y (D)
Law Enforcement N 4 '73 N 4 '73 Y
Nursing N (L) N (L) N (L)
Medical Records N (L) N (L) N (L)
Radiation Tech. N 4 '73 N 4 '73 N
Notes:
Y = Yes
N = No
4 '73 = Baccalaureate Status in 1973
? = Y or N but with reservation
D = Dual program in 1971-73
L = Transfer later than 1971-73
Chancellor Humphrey noted that in a number of instances, his
recommendation differed from that of the President or that
of Director Donnelly. He suggested that comments from each
of the Division officers would be appropriate.
President Miller commented on the recommendation, partic-
ularly that involving Office Administration, Law Enforce-
ment, Electrical Engineering Technology and Engineering
Design Technology. He noted that Office Administration is
part of a 4-year program offered by the College of Business
Administration and requested that it be allowed to remain
with that College. He noted that he was changing his earli-
er recommendation. He noted that a baccalaureate program
in Law Enforcement is planned and the Regents have already
approved a Phase I presentation of this proposal. He sug-
gested that transfer of the present 2-year program would
disrupt the planning for a baccalaureate program and for
that reason requested that the 2-year program be allowed
to remain with the Nevada Technical Institute.
President Miller continued his comments, noting that the
Electrical Engineering Technology and Engineering Design
Technology are presently 2-year programs administered by
the Nevada Technical Institute; however, serious considera-
tion is presently being given to the possibility of devel-
oping 4-year programs in these areas. He recommended they
remain with NTI during the next biennium after which, if
the decision has been made that they will remain 2-year
programs, they could then be transferred to the Community
College Division.
Dean Weems spoke in reference to the two programs with
which the College of Business is concerned; Business Tech-
nology offered by NTI under the sponsorship of Business
Administration, and Office Administration, offered by
the College. Dean Weems stated that although the College
did not oppose the transfer of Business Technology, he did
feel that there were some serious questions which deserved
answers. He noted that Business Technology is a terminal
level program in which a large percentage of the teaching
is done by Graduate Teaching Fellows in the College of
Business Administration. He further noted that the Gradu-
ate Fellows not only do a satisfactory and very economical
job of teaching but also contribute to the building of the
Master of Business Administration student body. He ques-
tioned whether the Community College would, with full-time
professional staff, perform the task as economically. Also,
Dean Weems pointed out, the surplus Stead facilities are
presently being used for classrooms and dormitories. He
questioned whether the Community College could operate as
economically from a physical plant standpoint.
Concerning the proposed transfer of the Office Administra-
tion 2-year program, Dean Weems stated that he was surprised
to see this included, inasmuch as there had been no dis-
cussion of any kind with the faculty of the College of Busi-
ness Administration concerning the disposition of this
program. He noted that the associate degree in Office Ad-
ministration is only the first 2 years of a 4-year program
and is not separable. He suggested that transferring this
program would seriously damage the 4-year program in which
the baccalaureate degree is given. Dean Weems stated that
he strongly opposed transfer of this program.
Dr. Donnelly stated that he believed Office Administration
should be a separate 2-year program leading to a terminal
degree that would equip a person for the employment market.
Dean Weems said he was agreeable to letting the Community
College develop a secretarial program as needed but he did
not want the Community College to touch the Office Admin-
istration program. He stated that he had no objection to
what Dr. Donnelly wishes to do; he just wanted to protect
his 4-year program.
President Miller recommended that the College of Business
Administration be permitted to continue offering the as-
sociate degree since it is in fact the first 2 years of
a 4-year degree program.
Mr. Bilbray expressed opposition, noting that it was the
understanding that in undertaking the Community College
System, it would be that Division's responsibility to
offer less-than-baccalaureate degree programs.
Mrs. Knudtsen suggested that a 2-year program in this area
offered by the Community College would serve a different
type of student than would the College of Business Admin-
istration and would not necessarily duplicate the first
2 years of an existing 4-year program.
Mr. Harry Wolf, Director of the Nevada Technical Institute,
spoke in support of retention by the University of Nevada,
Reno, of the programs in Law Enforcement, Electrical Engi-
neering Technology and Engineering Design Technology, of-
fered under the supervision of Nevada Technical Institute.
He commented on the increasing demand which he said will
be generated in Nevada for technicians and spoke in sup-
port of development of these programs into 4-year baccalau-
reate programs. Mr. Wolf requested the Board to approve
the retention of these programs by NTI and their develop-
ment into 4-year programs.
President Miller restated his recommendation that the Board
approve an indefinite continuation of the associate degree
in Office Administration by the College of Business Ad-
ministration and that transfer of the two engineering
programs be delayed until the Board can consider proposals
for 4-year programs in these areas. President Miller
further noted that the Board would receive a Phase II
presentation on a baccalaureate degree program in Law
Enforcement in February.
Dr. Anderson referred to a number of letters which he
stated Mr. Hug had received and had asked him to bring to
the attention of the other members of the Board. He noted
that letters had been received from Attorney General
Robert List; Mr. Frank Fahrenkopf, an instructor in the
program; Sheriff Robert Galli; Undersheriff O'Boyle; Justice
Jon Collins, Sheriff Bob Humphrey and former District At-
torney William Raggio, in which they had recommended that
the Law Enforcement program remain with UNR, particularly
in view of the fact that it is scheduled to become a 4-year
program in 1973.
Dr. Donnelly stated that, in his opinion, a 2-year program
offered by the Community College Division should not inter-
fere with eventual development of a 4-year program at the
University level.
President Miller stated that he believed the Board should
allow time for a decision to be made on whether the Law
Enforcement programs can move to 4-year status.
Dr. James Anderson, representing the College of Engineer-
ing, spoke in support of the request to allow the Elec-
trical Engineering Technology and the Engineering Design
Technology programs to remain with NTI pending their
development into 4-year programs. If these programs do
not move to 4-year status, he said, they should then be
transferred to the Community College Division. Dr. Anderson
also spoke in support of the retention of the Law Enforce-
ment program for 2 years to see if it were feasible to
develop into a 4-year program.
Mr. Steninger suggested that it might be helpful if Mr.
Humphrey were to explain where his recommendations differ
from those of the Presidents or Director Donnelly's and
the basis for his recommendations.
Mr. Humphrey stated that because of the differences of
opinion which had been expressed, it could be assumed
that there has been a major fight; however, this had not
been the case. He pointed out that cooperation with the
Community College Division has been very good. There are
a few remaining matters on which the consensus has not
been reached, he noted, and therefore, the Board must make
a decision based on the information and the recommendations
submitted.
Mr. Humphrey stated that members of the University have
long been saying that a major problem was that we could
not truly be a University because the institution must
serve all the State's needs including the need for Junior
College and technical programs. Also, faculty have fre-
quently complained about the requirement of tailoring
courses to various levels.
Chancellor Humphrey continued by pointing out that the
University System agreed to accept the Community College
program, after it was started by others, as a part of the
System because it was believed that the least possible
duplication would occur if coordination were handled within
the System. He stated that, in his opinion, the University
now has the opportunity with the Community College to pro-
duce on its promises -- the Universities can now truly be
Universities by moving any certificate or associate degree
program to the Community College Division unless there is
a special reason for continued association with a College;
e. g., the agricultural programs. If certificate or associ-
ate degree programs are left with the Universities, they
should come under the control of a College faculty and
significant priority should be given to making them bac-
calaureate programs as soon as possible. If Law Enforce-
ment is to become a baccalaureat program, it should be
left with the University. If sufficient priority and
resources are not to be given to effect this change, the
program should be transferred to the Community College
Division.
Chancellor Humphrey stated that, in addition to the philos-
ophy which had influenced his recommendation, budgetary
limitations for new programs for 1971-73 had also been
considered. At this point, he said, the outlook for new
programs in the next biennium is very dim. To assume that
if you leave these programs on the University Campus and
give them emphasis is not valid if the Universities are
not willing to devote the resources at this time to making
them baccalaureate programs. Unless this is to happen,
they belong in the Community College Division.
Dr. Zorn stated that he strongly welcomed the Community
College Division in Las Vegas. The need to serve an ever-
increasing population makes it desirable that increased
emphasis be put in the CCD as a parallel to the Univer-
sity. Dr. Zorn stated that he was not concerned about the
awarding of associate degrees and believes this appropriate
for CCD with only two reservations. He noted that Law
Enforcement is increasingly in demand at the baccalaureate
level and he did not believe it wise for the University
System to continue a 2-year program in this area. He
recommended that the Universities get their priorities in
order to allow for 4-year programs in 1973. He recommended
that Law Enforcement not be transferred to the Community
College Division. Dr. Zorn stated that his second resrva-
tion concerned Radiologic Technology but noted that there
was agreement that it was not appropriate to transfer this
program to CCD.
Mr. Morris moved that those programs on which agreement
had been reached by all 3 officers involved be transferred
to the Community College Division (i. e., A. A. Nursing,
UNR; Business Technology, UNR; Radiation Technology, UNR;
Fire Science, UNLV; Office Administration, UNLV; Design
Technology, UNLV and Electronics Technology, UNLV). Motion
seconded by Mrs. Knudtsen, carried without dissent.
Mr. Bilbray moved that the following programs also be moved
to the Community College Division:
Office Administration, UNR
Food Service Management, UNR
Law Enforcement, UNR and UNLV
Electrical Engineering Technology, UNR
Engineering Design Technology, UNR
Motion seconded by Miss Thompson.
President Miller requested that the programs referred to
earlier (Electrical Engineering Technology, Engineering
Design Technology and Law Enforcement) be retained by UNR
for a grace period of 2 years while the Administration
explores the possibility of 4-year programs. If the
decision is made at the end of that time that they should
remain at the 2-year level, they could then be transferred.
Mr. Jacobsen asked if the 2-year Law Enforcement program
were transferred, would that remove the basis for a 4-year
program. Dr. Miller said it could cause problems.
Mrs. Knudtsen asked if a 4-year program is developed at
the University, would that preclude a 2-year program in
the Community College Division.
Dr. Zorn pointed out that what is needed is a 4-year pro-
gram in Law Enforcement and the University should be plan-
ning for it. If the existing rograms are moved out, it
would remove the people who are in a position to develop
a baccalaureate program.
In response to a question concerning projected enrollment
in Law Enforcement, Mr. Wolf stated that there are presently
108 students enrolled in Law Enforcement classes at UNR and
it is estimated that 80% would go on into 4-year programs.
(Note to minutes: 6 week Fall enrollment report, Fall 1970,
indicates 45 headcount and 16.6 FTE enrollment in Law
Enforcement.)
Dr. Zorn stated that although UNLV presently has only one
professional position in Law Enforcement, they have the
essence of a 2-year program and regard it as a base from
which to build a 4-year program.
Dr. Donnelly stated that he did not oppose a 4-year program
in Law Enforcement nor did he argue against the need for
this kind of training for Law Enforcement personnel. How-
ever, he pointed out that the State needs the 2-year pro-
gram which he noted is designed to upgrade the already
employed Law Enforcement Officer; a program, he pointed
out, which is appropriate for a Community College.
The Chairman called for a vote on Mr. Bilbray's motion,
requesting that the votes be recorded on each program
separately. Results were as follows:
Office Administration, UNR - transferred by vote of
affirmative, 4 negative.
Law Enforcement, UNR and UNLV - not transferred by
vote of 6 negative, 3 affirmative.
Electrical Engineering Technology, UNR - transferred
by vote of 5 affirmative, 4 negative.
Engineering Design Technology, UNR - transferred by
vote of 5 affirmative, 4 negative.
Food Service Management, UNR - transferred with no
dissent.
Miss Thompson moved that the associate degree program in
Fashion Trades, UNR, be transferred to the Community
College Division. Motion seconded by Mr. Bilbray, failed
with 4 affirmative, 5 negative.
3. College of Education Building Revenue Bonds
Chancellor Humphrey reported that bids for $1,200,000 of
UNR revenue bonds for the College of Education building
had been opened at 10 A.M. that morning and had been
reviewed by Mr. Edward Pine, UNR Business Manager, and
Mr. Nick Smith, Vice President, Burrows, Smith and Co.,
the University's revenue bond advisor.
Mr. Pine reported that 3 bids had been received:
Bank of America, N. T. & S. A.
and Associates 6.1581% net interest
Bank of America, Agent for John
Nuveen & Co. 6.1970% net interest
Stern Brothers & Co. 6.34432% net interest
Mr. Pine recommended that the bid of Bank of America at a
net interest rate of 6.1581% be accepted.
Mr. Smith noted that the representative of Bank of America
had not actually delivered his bid until a new minutes
past the advertised time of 10 A.M.; however, none of the
bids had been opened prior to the actual delivery of the
bid. He further noted that the Board may waive any ir-
regularities. He therefore recommended that the bid of
Bank of America be accepted as the best and lowest.
Chancellor Humphrey concurred in the above recommendation
and requested the following resolution be adopted:
RESOLUTION NO. 71-1
A RESOLUTION CONCERNING THE ISSUANCE BY THE BOARD OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA OF THE UNIVERSITY'S OBLIGA-
TIONS DESIGNATED AS THE "UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA, RENO,
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FEE REVENUE BONDS, SERIES NOVEM-
BER 1, 1970", IN THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF $1,200,000,
FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING AND OTHERWISE ACQUIR-
ING A COLLEGE OF EDUCATION BUILDING ON THE CAMPUS OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA, RENO, EQUIPMENT AND FURNISH-
INGS THEREFOR, AND STRUCTURES, IMPROVEMENTS AND OTHER
APPURTENANCES RELATING THERETO; ACCEPTING THE BEST BID
FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE BONDS; DESIGNATING THE PUR-
CHASER THEREOF, FIXING THE PRICE TO BE PAID THEREFOR,
PROVIDING THE INTEREST RATES THE PRINCIPAL OF THE
BONDS SHALL BEAR, AND PROVIDING OTHER DETAILS CON-
CERNING THE BONDS AND THE DESIGNATED IMPROVEMENTS;
RATIFYING ACTION HERETOFORE TAKEN TOWARD ACQUIRING
SUCH IMPROVEMENTS AND ISSUING THE BONDS; AND REPEAL-
ING ALL RESOLUTIONS IN CONFLICT HEREWITH.
Motion by Dr. Lombardi, seconded by Mr. Mc Dermott, carried
without dissent that the bid of Bank of America be accepted
and the above resolution be adopted.
4. Continued Discussion on Transfer of Programs to Community
College Division
Mrs. Knudtsen requested the discussion of the transfer of
the Engineering programs to the Community College Division
be reopened, stating that she had been told that this
transfer would result in the programs losing their accredi-
tation.
President Miller agreed that the accreditation from the
professional accrediting organization would no longer apply.
Dr. Donnelly said he did not share that opinion, noting that
when you move a program the professional accreditation goes
with it and a review is conducted immediately afterward.
Dr. Zorn expressed the opinion that professional accredita-
tion is not important at the Community College level; it is
the institutional accreditation that is important.
Dean Anderson disagreed. He said he believed the accredita-
tion was very important to the graduates seeking employment.
Dr. Donnelly said he did not believe it would be logical to
seek professional accreditation for all the individual pro-
grams which would be offered by the Community Colleges and
that he would prefer to have a single institutional accredi-
tation.
In response to a question from Mr. Steninger, Chancellor
Humphrey stated that the possibility of loss of professional
accreditation in these two programs would not cause him to
change his recommendation since he agreed that institutional
accredition was the most important.
Mrs. Knudtsen withdrew her request that the matter be re-
opened.
Mr. Steninger moved that the Community College State Plan
be adopted as amended. Motion seconded by Miss Thompson,
carried without dissent.
5. American Indian Organization
President Miller introduced Mr. Edward Johnson, President,
American Indian Organization, UNR, who presented the fol-
lowing resolution:
RESOLUTION OF THE AMERICAN INDIAN ORGANIZATION
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA, RENO
WHEREAS, the American Indian Organization of the Uni-
versity of Nevada, Reno is a duly organized and con-
stituted body composed of students of the University
and recognized and supported by the ASUN government,
and
WHEREAS, one of the purposes of the organization is to
improve the education of American Indian students, and
WHEREAS, the Board of Regents of the University of
Nevada System administers a "co-educational land grant
institution built in the American tradition of State
Universities offering the opportunity of higher educa-
tion to the deserving regardless of social status or
wealth (and stressed that) unless implemented this
statement of principle and intent is recognized as
insufficient. Intensive recruitment of students from
Nevada secondary schools includes the recruitment of
students from minority groups and from the economical-
ly and culturally disadvantaged", and
WHEREAS, the fact that a recent study has revealed
that 2/3 of those Indian students who were enrolled
at the University as of September 1967 were no longer
enrolled as of June 1970 emphasizes the Universities'
failure to adequately assist Indian students, and
WHEREAS, there are more than 60 Indian students at-
tending the University of Nevada, Reno, and only 20
Indian fee waivers, and
WHEREAS, there are very few courses offered each
semester that provide any background on American In-
dian people, and those courses mandatory for many
students only hastily sketch Indian history, and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the American In-
dian Organization hereby requests that the Board of
Regents take the necessary steps to correct the exist-
ing situation, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Regents in
correcting the situation enlarge the Educational Op-
portunity Program under the office of the President
by adding a full time counseling staff and including
the Special Services' tutorial program. In addition
all Indian funds, including fee waivers should be
centralized in the Financial Aids Office, with the
understanding that the Financial Aids Office will work
closely with the Educational Opportunity Office in
determining the distribution of those funds, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Regents
shift unused Indian fee waivers from any and all
Divisions to the Division with the most Indian stu-
dents enrolled and increase the total number in
order to meet increasing Indian enrollment, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Regents in-
crease forthwith the number of Indian courses, includ-
ing a contemporary Indian history course, in the
curriculum, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Nevada Indian Affairs
Commission, the Presidents Human Relations Commission,
University of Nevada, Reno, the Nevada Inter-Tribal
Council, the Max C. Fleischman Foundation, the U. S.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the U. S. Department of
Health Education and Welfare be requested to help
achieve the goals of this resolution.
I, the undersigned, as Chairman of the American Indian
Organization do hereby certify that the foregoing reso-
lution was adopted at a meeting held on the 2nd day of
December, 1970.
Dated this 2nd day of December, 1970.
/s/ Edward C. Johnson
President
Chancellor Humphrey suggested that the Board might also
find helpful the following information as included in Ref.
O of the agenda:
In 1964 the Board provided in-State fee waivers to
Nevada resident students equal to 3% of the preceding
Fall enrollment. Of this 3%, 20 waivers were allocat-
ed to "American Indian students who are Nevada resi-
dents or graduates of high schools in Nevada."
In 1967 the Board removed these waivers from the "3%
category" and established a separate category of in-
State fee waivers for Nevada resident Indians. It
was assumed by the Administration that 20 waivers
were authorized each year for UNR, subject to Board
review periodically. No allocation was requested at
that time by UNLV. In 1970, the Board authorized
Elko Community College to grant waivers to 10 Indian
students.
The Davis Scholarships provide up to $50,000 per year
to the Educational Opportunity Program at UNR, for
scholarships of $1000 per year for minority group
students, with a stated goal for 1969-70 of recruit-
ing into the UNR student body 20 additional Negro and
20 additional Indian students from Nevada. The report
made to the Board in July, 1970 indicated 7 Indian
students as recipients of EOP grants of Davis Scholar-
ship money.
It was agreed that the discussion on the Administration of
Scholarship Programs, scheduled for later in the meeting,
was pertinent to the present discussion. Chancellor
Humphrey recalled that in July 1970 suggestions were made
by Regents for policy statements governing administration
of scholarship programs and the University Administration
was requested to react. In October, and again in December,
the Board granted extensions of time for consideration.
Various reports have been presented, all of which were
distributed in December.
Chancellor Humphrey submitted the following proposed state-
ment, which he noted was an interpretation of the proposal
introduced in July and which had been prepared in Board of
Regents Handbook style for inclusion if adopted in that
publication:
CHAPTER 20
ADMINISTRATION OF SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAMS
Section 1.
1. All scholarships, prizes and waivers of registra-
tion fees or tuition, except as noted below, shall
be administered by the Scholarships and Prizes
Board at UNR, the Office of Student Financial Aids
and the Scholarship Committee at UNLV and the Fi-
nancial Aids Office at ECC, unless otherwise speci-
fied by the Board of Regents or the donor and ap-
proved by the Board of Regents.
2. Section 1 above shall not be applicable to those
waivers awarded as a condition of employment with
the University of Nevada System.
Section 2.
Scholarships and waivers at UNR and UNLV shall not be
awarded to a student whose cumulative grade point
average is below 2.0 or whose most recent semester
grade point average is below 2.0 except that entering
Freshmen students may receive a similar or reduced
award their 2nd semester even if their 1st semester
grade point average is below 2.0.
Section 3.
The following policies are applicable to the Bob Davis
Scholarships and are consistent with the terms of the
bequest:
1. Awards shall be made for one semester at a time
and shall not exceed $500 per recipient.
2. Recipients must be registered for at least 12
credits for the semester covered by the award.
3. Recipients must be Nevada residents; first pri-
ority will be given to those born in Nevada and
second priority to those not born in Nevada but
who have graduated from Nevada high schools.
4. Nominations for scholarships may be made by the
faculty, the Director of the Educational Opportu-
nity Program, or others.
President Miller commented on the resolution submitted by
Mr. Johnson and also on the statement submitted by the
Chancellor. He noted that UNR is proposing that a single
faculty/student advisory policy committee be set up which
would deal with matters of policy concerning the total
financial aids package. The 3 Administrators presently
involved (i. e., Chairman of Scholarships and Prizes,
Director of Financial Aids, and Director of Educational
Opportunity Program) would continue to operate the pro-
grams but their efforts will be coordinated by the policy
board. He asked that the above policy statement be amend-
ed to indicate "Financial Aid and Scholarships Board" at
UNR (rather than Scholarships and Prizes Board).
Dr. Anderson suggested the discussion concern the entire
System rather than one Division and offered a recommenda-
tion for referral to the University Administration which
would establish a Board and 3 committees to administer
all student financial aid programs. (Dr. Anderson's recom-
mendation filed with permanent minutes.) Dr. Anderson
suggsted that a response to this recommendation be returned
to the Board in March or April.
Mr. Knudtsen moved that the policy statement submitted by
Chancellor Humphrey, as amended by President Miller, be
approved for inclusion in the Board of Regents Handbook.
Motion seconded by Dr. Lombardi.
President Zorn stated that he believed UNLV to be in con-
formity with the policy statement as submitted.
Mrs. Knudtsen expanded her motion to include referral to
the Presidents of Dr. Anderson's recommendation and the
resolution submitted by Mr. Johnson. Dr. Lombardi concur-
red.
President Miller stated that he agreed with the points in
Mr. Johnson's resolution. He noted that consolidation of
all financial aids into one board would resolve one of the
problems Mr. Johnson refers to and extensive planning for
an ethnic studies program will occur during the Spring. He
agreed that UNR needs more counseling for Indian students.
Mr. Knudtsen's motion carried without dissent.
6. Acceptance of Gifts
Gifts and grants were recommended for acceptance as indicat-
ed in Ref. A filed with permanent minutes.
Motion by Mr. Bilbray, seconded by Mr. Mc Dermott, carried
without dissent that the gifts be accepted as presented.
7. Report of Personnel Actions
Approval of the following personnel appointments was recom-
mended by the appropriate officers:
UNLV
COLLEGE OF ALLIED HEALTH PROFESSIONS
Ramon B. Pence, Adjunct Professor of Radiologic Technology,
2/1/71-6/30/71
STUDENT PERSONNEL SERVICES
Keith C. Zobel, Assistant to the Dean of Students, 12/15/70-
6/15/71 - $4035
UNR
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE
Betty Manhart, Instructor in Home Economics, 2/1/71-6/30/71
- $4500
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE COURT JUDGES
Jacqueline Belmont, Manager, Membership Services, 12/1/70-
6/30/71 - $4226.25
Marie R. Mildon, Manager, Administrative Services, 12/1/70-
6/30/71 - $4226.25
Motion by Mr. Bilbray, seconded by Mr. Morris, carried with-
out dissent that the above recommendation be approved.
8. UNLV Accreditation Report
President Zorn reported that UNLV has been granted full re-
accreditation by the Northwest Association of Secondary
and Higher Schools. This reaccreditation implies a period
of 10 years with a progress report required at the end of
5 years.
Dr. Zorn stated that he would send a copy of the report to
all Regents plus a copy of the report by the University
Committee on University Development.
9. Award of Bid in Excess of $5000
President Zorn reported that after permission had been ob-
tained from the State Printer, the following bids were
opened December 15, 1970, for printing the 1971-72 under-
graduate catalog.
Advance Printing, Las Vegas $17,600
Allied Printing, Las Vegas 15,456
Mayhew Ltd., Las Vegas 13,437
Peninsula Litho, Menlo Park, Calif. 11,774
Parker & Son, Los Angeles, Calif. 11,330
President Zorn recommended approval of the bid of Parker
& Son. Chancellor Humphrey concurred.
Motion by Mr. Mc Dermott, seconded by Mr. Bilbray, carried
without dissent that the above recommendation be approved.
10. Authorization to Proceed on Land Sale
President Zorn reported that the Clark County School Dis-
tict has expressed interest in the purchase of 10 acres
of land owned by the Board of Regents. The land is part
of 54 acres owned by the University located northwesterly
of the intersection of Las Vegas Boulevard North and Lamb
Boulevard, near the City of North Las Vegas. The original
gift specified that the proceeds be dedicated to the UNLV
College of Business.
Chancellor Humphrey recommended that the Administration be
authorized to proceed with the appraisals of the property
and, when completed, an appropriate resolution be presented
to the Board in conformity with NRS 277.050 which stipulates
the procedure for intergovernmental sale of land.
Motion by Dr. Anderson, seconded by Mr. Bilbray, carried
without dissent that the above recommendation be approved.
11. UNS Environmental Studies Program
Dr. Ward reported that Mr. Joseph Warburton, Deputy Director
of DRI, serves as Chairman of a 6-member UNS committee to
plan a System Environmental Studies Program and, on behalf
of the committee, has requested that $500 be made available
for Reno-Las Vegas committee travel and to defray costs of
preparation of proposals in environmental studies to Fed-
eral agencies.
Chancellor Humphrey recommended that the requested $500 be
made available from the Board of Regents Special Projects
Fund.
Motion by Dr. Lombardi, seconded by Mr. Bilbray, carried
without dissent that the above recommendation be approved.
12. Approval of Fund Transfers
Chancellor Humphrey recommended approval of the following
transfers of funds:
$21,745 from the UNR Contingency Reserve to the Classi-
fied and Technical Salary Adjustment Account. In de-
veloping the 1970-71 Work Program, $178,275 was reserved
to fund the $50 per month classified and technical em-
ployee salary adjustment approved by the Legislature
effective July 1, 1970. The actual cost to implement
this adjustment was $200,020 making it necessary to
transfer an additional $21,745.
$36,575 from the UNR Contingency Reserve to the Gradu-
ate Fellowship Salary Adjustment Account. Graduate
Fellowships (Assistants) are Work Programmed at $2500
each. The salaries paid are $2500 for first year,
$2700 for second year and $2900 for third year fellow-
ships. The actual difference between the amount budg-
eted and the contracts issued to Graduate Fellows is
$46,576; the amount budgeted for the difference is
$10,000, making it necessary to transfer an additional
$36,575.
Motion by Dr. Lombardi, seconded by Mr. Bilbray, carried
without dissent that the above recommendation be approved.
13. Approval of Purchases in Excess of $5000
A. Mr. Pine reported that the following bids were opened
December 15, 1970 for bakery products:
Welsh's Bakery, Reno $ 5,848.10
Rainbow Baking Co., Sacramento 5,565.10
Continental Baking, Sacramento 5,742.90
A 5% in-State preference to Welsh's Bakery would
establish its bid as an equivalent of $5,555.70.
President Miller recommended award to Welsh's Bakery.
Chancellor Humphrey concurred.
Motion by Mr. Bilbray, seconded by Dr. Anderson,
carried without dissent that the above recommendation
be approved.
B. Mr. Pine reported that the following bids were opened
December 15, 1970 for poultry products:
Reno Food Distributors, Reno $ 6,536.00
Cal-Vada Sales, Reno 6,729.00
Monarch Foods, Reno 7,464.00
President Miller recommended award to Reno Food Dis-
tributors. Chancellor Humphrey concurred.
Motion by Mr. Bilbray, seconded by Mrs. Knutdsen,
carried without dissent that the above recommenda-
tion be approved.
C. Mr. Pine reported that bids were opened December 15,
1970 for dairy products. Bids were received from 3
companies; however, 2 companies withdrew their bids
because of Dairy Commission regulations. The remain-
ing bid was:
Beatrice Foods, Reno $30,162.07
President Miller recommended award to Beatrice Foods.
Chancellor Humphrey concurred.
Motion by Mr. Mc Dermott, seconded by Mr. Bilbray,
carried without dissent that the above recommendation
be approved.
D. Mr. Pine reported that bids were opened December 17,
1970 for 114 grocery items. Bids should be awarded
on a low per item basis as follows:
Items Amount
Abbott Supply Co., Sparks 54 $15,711.26
Monarch Foods, Reno 44 7,474.74
Standard Brands, Reno 4 1,425.70
Sierra Foods, Sparks 2 1,236.15
M & R Products, Sparks 4 819.40
Continental Coffee Co., Reno 6 333.97
Total 114 $27,001.22
President Miller recommended award to the above listed
bidders on the low items basis. Chancellor Humphrey
concurred.
Motion by Dr. Lombardi, seconded by Mr. Bilbray, car-
ried without dissent that the above recommendation be
approved.
14. Updating the Ten Year Plan
Chancellor Humphrey noted that State Law requires that a
Ten Year Plan for the University be presented to each
regular session of the Legislature 10 days after it con-
venes. He noted that a draft copy of the updating of the
original plan filed in 1969 had been included with the
agenda and requested that Mr. K. D. Jessup, Institutional
Studies Officer, review the document.
Mr. Jessup reviewed the format and contents of the docu-
ment, responding to questions raised by the Regents. (Text
of Mr. Jessup's presentation on file in Chancellor's Of-
fice.)
Chancellor Humphrey reviewed Chapter VII of the draft docu-
ment, dealing with Sources of Revenue, noting that the
revenue from student fees is calculated by assuming that
the annual fees for each resident student taking more than
6 credits per semester would be equal to 15% of the previous
years cost per FTE students and each non-resident student
enrolled in more than 6 credits would pay 75% of the pre-
vious years cost per FTE student. The cost components
which compose the base for these calculations are instruc-
tion and departmental research, library, administration
and general expense, and operation and maintenance of
physical plant.
Chancellor Humphrey recommended approval of the document
with the understanding that it will be subject to continu-
ous change as it goes through a regular updating process.
He noted the necessity of adopting it now in draft form
so that a final document might be prepared for submission
to the Legislature on January 29, 1971.
In the discussion following, it was agreed that adjustments
would be made in the enrollment projections to reflect the
actions taken earlier to transfer certain programs to the
Community College Division and that clarifying statements
would be added to the narrative to reflect the possibility
of an increase in the capture rate by UNLV of Clark County
High School graduates because of the increase in physical
plant on that Campus. It was also agreed that an informa-
tional statement would be included concerning the share of
the building program costs which will be borne by the
students through the increase in the capital improvement
fee.
Motion by Mr. Mc Dermott, seconded by Dr. Anderson, carried
without dissent that the draft updating of the Ten Year Plan
be approved with the amendments as discussed.
15. Capital Improvement Fee Increase, Effective Fall, 1971
Chancellor Humphrey recalled that in December the Board
voted to increase the Capital Improvement Fee for full-time
students from $42 to $84 per semester, effective Fall 1971.
He noted that it was implicit in the revenue tables, but
not explicitly stated, that the Capital Improvement Fee
for part-time students would also be increased from $3 to
$6 per credit. Chancellor Humphrey recommended that this
action be affirmed.
Motion by Dr. Lombardi, seconded by Mr. Bilbray, carried
without dissent that the above recommendation be approved.
16. Resolution Concerning Daniel R. Walsh
Chancellor Humphrey submitted the following resolution with
his recommendation for adoption:
RESOLUTION #71-2
WHEREAS, Mr. Daniel R. Walsh has, while serving as
Chief Deputy Attorney General of the State of Nevada,
served as legal counsel to the University of Nevada
for the past 7 years; and
WHEREAS, he has, through much diligence and dedicated
work, proven himself to be well qualified to advise
in the areas of University Law; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Walsh has now left public office and
plans to continue his future professional activities
to private law practice;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of
Regents of the University of Nevada does hereby com-
mend Mr. Walsh for the excellence of his service to
the University;
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the members of the
Board of Regents and the Administration of the Univer-
sity do extend most sincere good wishes to Mr. Walsh
for continued success in his professional career.
Given in Las Vegas, this 8th day of January, Nineteen
Hundred and Seventy One.
Motion by Mr. Bilbray, seconded by Dr. Lombardi, carried
without dissent that the above recommendation be adopted
as sumitted.
17. University of Nevada System Optional Retirement Program
(TIAA-CREF)
Chancellor Humphrey reported that his office has been
pursuing the possibilities of employees making contribu-
tions to TIAA-CREF through salary reduction as well as
the present provisions of salary deduction. This option
of making the contribution by salary reduction would, in
effect, be similar to the tax sheltered annuities program
previously approved by the Board of Regents, and would be
a definite benefit to particpating employees by allowing
them to avoid, for the present, income taxation on their
contribution. An Attorney General's letter of advice was
received December 24, 1970, approving the offering of the
salary reduction program as an option.
Chancellor Humphrey recommended that he be authorized to
proceed with notification of the faculty of this option
and the distribution of the necessary forms for comple-
tion by those choosing to participate.
Motion by Mr. Bilbray, seconded by Dr. Lombardi, carried
without dissent that the above recommendation be approved.
18. Gift of Land to DRI
Dr. Ward reported that Mr. and Mrs. Sulo Maki have given a
parcel of land to the University for use by DRI. The land
consists of lots 1 and 11, Longacres Park, Tract No. 1.
These lots total approximately 1 acre and are situated
across from the UNLV Campus on Maryland Parkway.
Director Ward and Chancellor Humphrey recommended accept-
ance.
Motion by Dr. Anderson, seconded by Mrs. Knudtsen, carried
without dissent that the gift be accepted.
19. Extension of CSUN Constitution
Mr. Myers requested that, in view of the fact that it has
proven impractical to schedule student elections prior to
the February Board of Regents meeting, the CSUN constitu-
tion be extended until March 13, or the March meeting of
the Board. President Zorn endorsed the request.
Motion by Mr. Bilbray, seconded by Mr. Mc Dermott, carried
without dissent that the above recommendation be approved.
The meeting adjourned at 2:00 P.M.
(Mrs.) Bonnie M. Smotony
Secretary to the Board
01-07-1971