01/07/1971

UCCSN Board of Regents' Meeting Minutes
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