January 12-13, 1984
1-12-1984
Pages 94-112
BOARD OF REGENTS
UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA SYSTEM
January 12-13, 1984
The Board of Regents met on the above dates in Room 399 Carlson
Education building, University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
Members present: Mr. John R. Mc Bride, Chairman
Ms. Frankie Sue Del Papa
Mrs. Lilly Fong
Mrs. Dorothy S. Gallagher
Mr. Chris Karamanos
Mrs. Joan Kenney
Mr. Daniel J. Klaich
Mrs. Jo Ann Sheerin
Mrs. June F. Whitley
Others present: Chancellor Robert M. Bersi
President William Berg, NNCC
President Anthony Calabro, WNCC
President Joseph Crowley, UNR
President V. James Eardley, TMCC
President Leonard Goodall, UNLV
President Paul Meacham, CCCC
Acting President Warren Kocmond, DRI
Mr. Donald Klasic, General Counsel
Ms. Mary Lou Moser, Secretary
Also present were Faculty Senate Chairs William Cathey (UNR),
Diane Dietrich (Unit), Joan Doggrell (CCCC), Allen Mori (UNLV),
Richard French (DRI), Michael Hardie (WNCC), and Mary Ann Lambert
(TMCC), and Student Association Officers.
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Mc Bride at 8:30 A.M.
1. Personnel Session
Upon motion by Mrs. Fong, seconded by Mr. Karamanos, the
Board moved to a personnel session for the purpose of com-
pleting annual evaluations of Officers.
The Chairman reconvened the Board in public session at 1:35 P.M.
2. Approved the Consent Agenda
Approved the Consent Agenda (identified as Ref. A, and filed
with the permanent minutes) containing the following items:
(1) Approved the minutes of the regular meeting held
December 8-9, 1983.
(2) Accepted the gifts, grants and contracts as listed in
Ref. C-1 and filed with the permanent minutes.
(3) Approved the following changes in the Handbook, Title
4, Chapter 13, Section 8, Refund Policy for CCCC:
1. Delete "CCCC" from Paragraph 2.
2. Add the following policy as Paragraph 4:
4. The following policy is effective for CCCC
beginning with Fall 1984 semester:
a. The refund for all students, in all programs,
with the exception of Summer Session, for
withdrawal of net credit load reduction shall
be:
(1) One hundred percent (100%) if initiated
prior to the first day of the semester.
(2) Seventy-five percent (75%) if initiated
during the first week of the semester.
(3) Fifty percent (50%) if initiated during
the second week of the semester.
(4) No refund after the end of the second
week of the semester.
b. A refund of fifty percent (50%) of the regis-
tration fee shall be made to students with-
drawing during the first 10 percent (10%) of
a Summer Session or intensive course. No re-
funds shall be made after that time.
c. Upon written approval of the Director of Ad-
missions and Records, a full refund of all
registration fees and tuition shall be given
upon official withdrawal at any time during
the first six weeks of the semester, in the
following circumstances
(1) Induction of a student into the United
States Armed Forces;
(2) Death of a spouse, child, parent or legal
guardian of a student;
(3) Death of a student; or
(4) Verifiable error on the part of the in-
stitution.
No refund is made if withdrawal is after the
end of the sixth week, regardless of circum-
stances.
d. Nonresident tuition shall be refunded in con-
formity with the above schedule for load re-
duction to six credit hours or less and for
withdrawal.
(4) Approved Mr. Earl Johnson for membership to CCCC's
Board of Foundation Trustees.
(5) Approved a correction to the deferred fee in Title 4,
Chapter 10, Section 5, Registration for WNCC:
Paragraph 3 should read:
A student whose record indicates a delinquent
indebtedness to the College for registration
fees will be placed on financial hold for further
registration, transcript or diploma or certificate
privileges.
(6) Approved Mr. Bruce A. Kennedy, President, Thyssen
Mining Construction, Inc., to be added to the UNR
Mackay School of Mines Advisory Board.
(7) Approved a sublet lease on the Kapo Mining Properties
to Nevada North Resources (U. S. A.), Inc., condition-
ed upon the review of the sublease document by General
Counsel.
UNR currently has a mining lease on the Kapo Mining
Properties near Valmy (Winnemucca), Nevada, with
Decker Explorations, who has made a formal request
for permission to sublet the lease to Nevada North
Resources (U. S. A.), Inc. The Company has acquired
a number of other mining properties and plans ex-
tensive exploration of the area, which may benefit
UNR.
(8) Approved the Summer Session Budgets for 1984 for the
following Campuses:
A. UNR Summer Session Budget for 1984, Ref. C-2,
filed in the Regents Office.
B. CCCC Summer Session Budget for 1984, Ref. C-3,
filed in the Regents Office.
C. TMCC Summer Session Budget for 1984, Ref. C-4,
filed in the Regents Office.
D. NNCC Summer Session Budget for 1984, Ref. C-5,
filed in the Regents Office.
E. UNLV Summer Session Budget for 1984, Ref. C-6,
filed in the Regents Office.
(9) Authorized the use of $25,000 in Capital Improvement
Funds at UNR for the completion of the installation of
the VAX 11-750 Computer as well as HP 9000. Both VAX
11-750 and HP 9000 will provide the computer facili-
ties necessary for the teaching of electrical engi-
nering courses. In addition, VAX 11-750 will provide
text processing services for UNR Campus.
(10) Authorized to allocate $100,000 of Capital Improvement
Project Funds at UNLV for equipment and improvements
in the Thomas and Mack Center, which will enable the
facility to be used for such non-athletic events as
Commencement, music and theatrical programs.
Mrs. Fong requested a detailed expense account for the
allocation of funds.
Mrs. Whitley moved for adoption of the Consent Agenda. Mrs.
Sheerin seconded. Motion carried.
3. Approved Phase I Proposal for School of Engineering and
Computer Science, UNLV
In March, 1983 a study team from the National Academy of
Engineering, Chaired by Dr. Paul Chenea, was requested by
the Board of Regents to conduct a site visit to the State,
in order to made Statewide recommendations for engineering
education in the System. A report was subsequently sub-
mitted to the Board in April, 1983 and was referred to the
Campuses for their consideration.
The report and Campus recommendations were discussed at the
December 8, 1983 meeting of the Board of Regents. Joint
statements by UNR and UNLV on engineering education were
accepted by the Board, along with testimoney from public
and Campus advisory groups on engineering.
The Board of Regents adopted a resolution which reaffirmed
the Board's commitment to support a fully accredited program
at UNR and requested a Phase I proposal be prepared for a
School of Engineering and Computer Science at UNLV, Ref. B,
filed in the Regents Office.
Dean David Emerson, College of Science, Mathematics and
Engineering, UNLV, summarized the Phase I Proposal, stating
that the transition to a full Engineering School would be
phased in over the next several years. Emphasizing that
duplication of programs at UNR and UNLV should not neces-
sarily be prohibited as long as there is a definite need
at both Campuses, he stated that Phase I calls for addi-
tional personnel, proposed funding from private and public
sources, and a 11,000 sq. ft. building, to open in the Fall
of 1987, estimated at $18 million, including equipment.
Mrs. Gallagher questioned the need for architectural engi-
neering as included in this program proposal, with Mr. Mc
Bride agreeing that it should not. Dean Emerson stated
that it had been agreed between Presidents Crowley and
Goodall that architectural engineering would be placed at
UNLV; therefore, it had been included in the Phase I.
Mr. Klaich was recognized by the Chair and made the follow-
ing statement:
I would like to make some extended remarks to Dean
Emerson's presentation, and would appreciate these
remarks being viewed in the context of my second to
Regent Fong's motion at the December meeting, approving
the concept of an Engineering School at UNLV. That
second represented my feelings about the philosophical
basis of engineering within the System at that time,
which remains my opinion today. Despite that feeling,
I believe there are a number of concerns reaised by this
Phase I Proposal, which I would like to address. You
should construe my remarks as questions, where appropri-
ate, to be answered at the conclusion.
First, I believe it is important that we consider the
environment in which this subject is being discussed.
We have a State on the financial rebound and a Governor
firmly committed to the betterment of education at all
levels. That same Governor and influential Legislators,
both South and North, have cautioned that the financial
well is not bottomless, and that they fully expect us
to assess and intelligently present our priorities for
higher education in Nevada. We have well defined pri-
orities which will not be displaced irrespective of any
decision we make regarding engineering anywhere in the
System. They are (1) rehabilitating faculty salaries;
(2) strengthening the financial infrastructure of the
University System, that is, the MIS; and (3) improving
student/faculty ratios. These priorities are expensive
propositions, which means that all other priorities will
be competing for limited dollars against other deserving
programs within and without the University System. Even
in this context, however, every report to the Board, in-
cluding the careful and thoughtful joint report of our
University Presidents, has emphasized the need and de-
sirability of enhanced engineering opportunites at UNLV
- but for what purpose?
First: to support the economic diversification so
necessary to the long-term health of our State; and
Second: to supply more engineering professionals
to a market that is projected to absorb them.
The order of these purposes is critical, and, I will
suggest, has not been addressed by this Phase I Pro-
posal.
Where does this leave us? We have an honest and essen-
tial educational need and very limited existing Univer-
sity funds, only speculative State funds, and as yet,
only the promise of private funds; what I think this
adds up to is the immediate need for keen academic
analysis of alternative engineering programs at various
funding levels, and above all, creative thinking. To
the contrary, what we have received is conventional,
expensive, unresponsive, one-dimensional and inflexible.
What is wrong with this Phase I Proposal? It is extra-
ordinarily vague in the area of finances. I personally
do not believe we can further indulge in the fiction
that planning can be severed from budget realities.
It is not constructed on the basis of the joint agree-
ment of the Presidents of UNR and UNLV. For example,
in that agreement there was no mention of a School of
Architecture, which has been included in this proposal.
It is a shotgun approach that proceeds on a philosophi-
cal basis of a little bit to all, starting at the bot-
tom. What this means to me is a commitment to medioc-
rity in the long run, and to no perceptible positive
effect in the short run. It begs the Board to abdicate
its authority to the Legislature as essentially a fund-
ing decision. It ignores the needs that we are specif-
ically seeking to address, that is, industry support
and economic diversification. I believe we owe more to
UNLV, to the people of the State, and most specifically,
to the Southern Nevada community.
I will not merely criticize this proposal without giving
some thought as to what I think we should do. If eco-
nomic diversification is our main goal, we must realize
what type of engineering opportunities are of the first
importance:
First, Masters Programs at the University level;
Second, engineering technology programs, which
probably belong at the Community College level.
The type of businesses that we need and want don't need
our baccalaureate engineers. They recruit nationally
at a level with which we cannot compete for the fore-
seeable future. They need ongoing post-graduate,
professional education and assistance with technicians.
Can we provide these services? The Masters Programs at
the University level are the easiest and cheapest to
staff and equip. Masters professors can be adjunct
faculty with an immediate flexibility to consult with
industry. The least facilities are required immediately
and ultimately required in the long run. Engineering
programs can and are capable of being founded at the
mid- or Masters level. Programs founded here are ca-
pable of growing up and down into both stronger bac-
calaureate and advanced programs -- and that growth can
be long term and well planned.
With the foregoing in mind, I would propose that this
Board take the following action with respect to the
Phase I Proposal before us this afternoon:
1. We should approve the reorganization of the School
as set forth in the Phase I Proposal with the dele-
tion of architecture.
2. We should direct the immediate hiring of a UNLV con-
sultant in engineering or Director of the Engineer-
ing School who, first, knows the profession, second,
understands the educational model, and, third, can
dovetail the programs we develop into the health of
the community.
3. We should remand the Phase I Proposal to UNLV to be
rethought in connection with the consultant/director
to comply with the joint proposal of the Presidents
and the express needs of the Southern Nevada busi-
ness community.
4. We should reaffirm this Board's commitment to the
most accelerated procedures for engineering at UNLV
and the initiation of enhanced programs within our
means at the earliest date.
5. We should direct the development of alternative
proposals for engineering at UNLV within various
funding levels so that we are not faced with and
forced to forward to the Legislature an all or
nothing at all proposal.
The Phase I Proposal as sumitted to us this afternoon
simply is not good enough for UNLV and should be re-
jected by the Board.
Ms. Del Papa, supporting Mr. Klaich's position, emphasized
the need for private funding sources, but stressed that
just promises of those private funds are not commitment
enough. Mrs. Sheerin commended Mr. Klaich for the positive
report and suggested that it will be necessary for the Col-
lege to be very creative in their programs, urging that
they look at alternatives to avoid duplication of programs
with other Campuses. Mrs. Gallagher suggested that the
Campus must work within its own 10-year plan for the place-
ment of this School. Further, she stated she did not sup-
port a separate building at this time, but rather that it
must be considered within the System Capital Improvement
Plan in conjunction with all other building requirements.
Mr. Mc Bride spoke in favor of accepting the Phase I report,
reiterating that he has been contacted by many of those con-
nected with industry from around the State and has continu-
ally emphasized the need for a firm commitment from them,
the general public, and the State, to a College of Engineer-
ing at UNLV.
Mrs. Whitley moved to accept the Phase I Proposal for the
School of Engineering and Computer Science at UNLV with the
deletion of 1) the degree of Architectural Engineering, and
2) construction of a new building at this time. Mrs. Fong
seconded.
Vice Chancellor Fox reported that the Academic Affairs Coun-
cil had just received the Phase I Proposal at their meeting
in the morning (just prior to the Regents meeting) and that
they support the Board of Regents Resolution adopted at the
December meeting, accreditation of the College of Engineer-
ing at UNR, and the technical training program proposed for
for Community Colleges. They were not privy to the material
supplied by Dean Emerson to the Regents at this presentation
which, if it had been available, could have cleared up a
number of questions brought forth at their meeting.
Further, Vice Chancellor Fox stated the Council does recom-
mend the removal of the $18 million building, the removal
of the appendix attached to Phase I, which is not really a
part of this proposal, and they needed further clarifica-
tion of the positions as requested in the Phase I (some of
which were addressed in the aforementioned handout). For
Phase II, the Council requests that each area within the
School be addressed separately, and that alternative meth-
ods, such as the use of video tapes, could address the
problem of duplication of programs.
Mr. Klaich posed a question of President Goodall concerning
what would happen to the program if approval is given but
no State funds are available for support. Dr. Goodall
responded that UNLV would continue to work within their
budget to build the School, and reminded the Board that
one of the thrusts at UNLV is towards engineering.
A roll call vote was requested:
Aye: Del Papa, Fong, Gallagher, Karamanos, Kenney,
Whitley, Mc Bride
Nay: Klaich, Sheerin
Chairman Mc Bride relinquished the gavel to Vice Chairman
Gallagher.
4. Report of Internal Audits, October 1 - December 31, 1983
Kathy Kossick, Director of Internal Audit, presented a sum-
mary report of internal audits completed for the quarter,
October through December, 1983. See Ref. E, filed in the
permanent minutes.
Chancellor Bersi announced to the Board that Mrs. Kossick
would be leaving the System in February. He commended her
on her remarkable service to the System and announced that
among her accomplishments while with the System, she had
instigated A-110 audits to be used as a national model for
internal, external and federal audits.
Mrs. Kenney introduced Mrs. Vivienne Morris and Mr. Hal Smith
of the State Board of Education.
5. Report from Bank Investors
A. Mr. Bob Lee submitted the report for First Interstate
Bank.
B. Mr. Monte Miller submitted the report for Valley Bank
of Nevada. Mr. Klaich had previously requested a de-
tailed breakdown of his report which he submitted to
the Board. Mr. Klaich thanked him for his endeavors
and Mr. Miller informed the Board that he would continue
this service.
C. Mr. Murry Foster submitted the report for Security Bank
of Nevada
Mrs. Gallagher requested Mr. Foster to continue working
with Vice Chancellor Dawson on the Planetarium Account.
D. Mr. Pete Burns submitted the report for Nevada National
Bank.
6. Approved the Action in the Estate of Vera Francis
In 1980 Vera Francis executed a will in which, after various
bequests to other persons, she left the balance of her es-
tate to the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, upon the condi-
tion that all funds arising from said bequest shall be used
exclusively for the purposes of student loans. The National
Association of Retarded Citizens requested that the Board of
Regents reject the bequest of Mrs. Francis so that it may be
used for the benefit of her adopted son, who is retarded.
A full explanation is contained in memorandums of General
Counsel Klasic and President Goodall contained in Ref. F,
filed in the Regents Office.
Mrs. Fong moved the Board reject the bequest of Mrs. Vera
Francis and authorized General Counsel Klasic to enter into
negotiations which would benefit Mrs. Francis' adopted son.
Mrs. Kenney seconded. Motion carried.
Mr. Klaich requested General Counsel Klasic to report back
to the Board on the negotiations.
7. Approved the Appointment of Director of University of Nevada
Press
Chancellor Bersi, with the concurrence of the Search Commit-
tee, recommended Mr. John "Rick" Stetter to the Board for
the appointment as Director of the University of Nevada
Press, effective January 16, 1984 at an annual salary of
$38,500.
Mrs. Whitley moved approval of Mr. John "Rick" Stetter as
the Director of the University of Nevada Press, effective
January 16, 1984 at an annual salary of $38,500. Mrs. Fong
seconded. Motion carried.
Chairman Mc Bride returned and resumed the gavel.
8. Report of Joint Ad Hoc Committees Meeting on UNR and UNLV
Athletics Meeting
Ms. Del Papa reported that the joint committees had met and
heard reports from Presidents Crowley and Goodall on the
implementation of the Athletics policies as adopted by the
Board in May, 1983.
The Five-Year Plan for both Campuses will be submitted for
Board consideration at the April meeting.
Ms. Del Papa recommended that these ad hoc committees be
disbanded and that an annual report be placed on the calen-
dar for progress reports regarding Athletics.
Ms. Del Papa moved approval. Mrs. Gallagher seconded.
Motion carried.
9. Approved the Amendment to Bylaws, UNR
Approved the following amendment to the UNR Bylaws:
Part 1, Chapter 1, Section 4. AMENDMENT OF THE BYLAWS
Any member of the faculty may propose amendments to the By-
laws. Proposed amendments shall be submitted in writing
to the Faculty Senate, which shall refer the same to a
Senate Bylaws Committee for its review and recommendation.
If approved by a majority of the Faculty Senate, the pro-
posed amendment shall be submitted to the faculty and pro-
fessional staff for a vote by a written, secret mail ballot.
A proposed amendment which, after consideration by the
Faculty Senate, has not been approved by a majority of that
body, shall be submitted to the faculty for a vote by a
written, secret mail ballot, if at least ten percent of the
faculty sign a petition requesting this action. The amend-
ment shall be in force upon: 1) approval by the faculty,
which shall be by at least a two-thirds majority of those
voting in a written, secret mail ballot; 2) approval by
the President after consultation with the Administrative
Council; and 3) approval by the Board of Regents.
General Counsel Klasic recommended approval subject to fur-
ther review of the provision after the proposed UNR Bylaws
in their entirety are submitted to the Regents for approval.
Mrs. Kenney moved approval of the amendment of the UNR
Bylaws subject to further review after the proposed UNR
Bylaws are submitted to the Regents. Mr. Klaich seconded.
Motion carried.
10. Report from the Regents Ad Hoc Liaison Committee
At the December, 1983 meeting the newly formed Professional
Staff Council at UNLV asked for recognition by the Regents
to represent nearly 1/4 of the professional staff at UNLV,
who for the past 5 years have not been represented by action
of the Faculty Senate.
The Liaison Committee met with the Professional Staff Coun-
cil on December 19, 1983. Mrs. Gallagher, Chair, related
that there apparently has been no success in bringing the
Professional Staff Council back into the Faculty Senate at
UNLV.
Ms. Nancy Forni, Chair of the Professional Staff Council,
stated that she had met with President Goodall, who informed
her that the Professional Staff Council would now be recog-
nized on the Campus. There are 137 members who are in the
Professional Staff Council, which is 37.5% of the profes-
sional employees at UNLV, without representation.
Mrs. Gallagher moved for approval of recognizing the Profes-
sional Staff Council on the level of the Faculty Senate and
that they be seated with the Faculty Senate Chairs at Regent
meetings. Mrs. Whitley seconded.
Mr. Klaich stated that he was not against the recommendation
but that it would be creating a precedent which would be un-
desirable and that in voting for this recognition it is not
to be misunderstood as encouraging other organizations to
break away. However, at UNLV there are extreme circum-
stances to be considered. He urged the Faculty Senate and
Professional Staff Council to reunite into one organization
and suggested a one year trial basis for the two groups.
Dr. Allen Mori, UNLV Faculty Senate Chair, stated that he
had presented President Goodall with a recommendation which
would give the professional staff representation on commit-
tees and provide them with two Senators, with Ms. Forni
replying that she had not heard of this recommendation. Dr.
Mori then emphasized that this was only his recommendation
and that it had not been endorsed by the Faculty Senate.
President Goodall reiterated that the Professional Staff
Council now has Campus recognition and will be able to at-
tend meetings, have access to budgets, and have access
through the President to the Board of Regents to speak on
issues; however, he felt that under present circumstances
the two organizations likely would not be able to merge at
this time.
Dr. William Cathey, UNR Faculty Senate Chair, stated that
UNR has a very successful model with equal representation,
but if the Professional Staff Council is included that there
might be a division of strength at the Senate table. Mrs.
Gallagher agreed with the successful model at UNR, but said
there would not be a change in power at the table, but
rather that each group from UNLV would each have "half-a-
vote". She expressed her hope that down the road the two
would reunite.
Mr. Jim Kitchen, Professional Staff Council, stated that 6
years ago the Faculty Senate at UNLV was organized in the
same fashion as UNR's Faculty Senate, but the problem at
UNLV is that the Faculty Senate does not consider profes-
sional staff as faculty. The professional staff, he stated,
is also concerned with academics, with many of them holding
Ph. D. and/or Master's degrees.
Mr. Karamanos encouraged the union of the two groups, stat-
ing that the greater the number, the better representation,
in any negotiations. He felt there was an effective Faculty
Senate 5 years ago when everyone was represented.
Dr. Mori expressed to the Board that the Faculty Senate is
an Academic Faculty Senate. Mrs. Whitley reminded him that
the professional staff was a support service to the faculty,
the Board is concerned with academic standards and quality
and she felt there could not be a separation of the support
staff.
Mr. Klaich amended the motion by adding that there would be
a one year dialogue under the direction of the President
between the two groups and that at the end of the one year,
a report be made to the Board, along with resolution, and
if the two groups could not merge, the reasons be given.
Mrs. Fong seconded.
Mrs. Gallagher reiterated that if UNLV Faculty Senate was
only concerned with academic affairs, then it was very im-
portant to have the professional staff represented.
President Crowley stated that if two Senates are formed,
then there would be issues that would be of concern for both
Senates. He informed the Board that in setting this preced-
ent the Graduate Student Association at UNR may be declaring
its own representation.
Mrs. Fong addressed the Faculty Senate by asking whether
they really could operate without the assistance of the
professional staff.
Faculty Senate Chairs Lambert and Hardie registered their
opposition in recognizing the professional staff.
The Board then considered the amended motion.
Moved that the Professional Staff Council be approved and
recognized on the level of the Faculty Senate and that they
be seated with the Faculty Senate Chairs at Regent meetings
and that there would be a one year dialogue under the di-
rection of the President between the two groups and that
at the end of the one year a report be made to the Board,
along with resolution, and if the two groups could not merge
the reasons be given. Motion carried. Ms. Del Papa voted
no.
11. Approved Officers' Contracts for 1984-85
Annual evaluation having been completed, the Board approved
extending UNS Officer Contracts for 1984-85 without change
in compensation.
Mrs. Gallagher moved approval. Mrs. Whitley seconded.
Motion carried.
12. Approved Resolution Regarding Investment of Funds
Approved the following Resolution:
RESOLUTION #84-2
WHEREAS, the University of Nevada System Controller's
Office invests the surplus operating funds of the Uni-
versity of Nevada System in quality risk-free, short-
term investments; and
WHEREAS, CDX, the national exchange for jumbo certifi-
cates of deposits in $100,000 lots federally insuring
both the principal and interest requires the University
of Nevada System to have a Custodian and Agent in New
York City to accept delivery and keep in safekeeping the
certificates; and
WHEREAS, State Street Bank and Trust Company, a banking
corporation acting as a Custodian and Agent in New York
City for other CDX investors has agreed to act in that
capacity for the System; NOW THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Board of Regents of the University of
Nevada System enter into a Custodian Agreement with
State Street Bank and Trust Company to act as Custodian
and Agent for the University of Nevada System.
Mrs. Whitley moved approval of the Resolution. Mrs. Kenney
seconded. Motion carried.
13. Report of Ad Hoc Committee on Regent Bylaws
Ms. Del Papa asked for suggestions from Regents regarding
Bylaws.
Ms. Del Papa informed the Board that General Counsel is in
the process of reorganizating the Handbook and adding poli-
cies on evaluation and ethics.
14. Report of the Presidential Search Committee, DRI
Mr. Klaich reported that the deadline for applications has
closed. The Committee will be meeting on January 20 to
select the finalists.
15. Report on MIS
Mr. Klaich reported that Deloitte, Haskins & Sells has
completed a draft report which will be submitted to the
Board at the April meeting.
16. Approved Loan from Capital Improvement Fee Fund, UNLV
President Goodall requested approval of a loan from the
Capital Improvement Fee Fund to the Athletics Department
of up to $400,000 to be paid back with interest at the rate
the Fund is currently receiving on its investments (approx-
imately 9%), to be paid back by August 1, 1984. Vice Chan-
cellor Dawson had recommended approval, but that the loan
be held to the current fiscal yer.
Dr. Goodall explained that this loan was needed because of
a cash flow problem only, stating that in the Spring the
Department has commitments on game guarantees, television
distributions, conference and post-season play distributions
for various sports, but that the cash flow is sporadic,
while the expenditures, such as salaries, are at regular
intervals.
Mr. Karamanos questioned whether the current budget includes
such items as team travel. Dr. Goodall replied that it did
not, but that he has the authority to make transfers to the
Department to cover these items, which are paid back when
the commitments to UNLV from these games are honored by the
other institutions and/or conferences.
Mrs. Sheerin, asking and receiving confirmation that this
loan will in no way supplement any of the budgets as they
now stand, also asked for confirmation that the only way the
current budget could be supplemented is from private dona-
tions specifically earmarked for a sport. She was assured
that is the case; i. e., should any budget for a sport be
inadequate -- such as basketball -- then any additional ex-
penditures must be covered by outside donations earmarked
for that sport -- basketball.
Mrs. Sheerin, in questioning an $120,000 amount still to be
collected for football, was informed that amount will be
forthcoming from game guarantees which have not as yet been
paid, although the games have been played. Dr. Goodall re-
iterated that the revenue projections presented at this time
are the best the Athletic Department's budget committee can
make and they believe them to be conservative, and that is
the reason they feel they can repay the loan by the end of
the fiscal year.
Mrs. Whitley asked for an explanation of the $60,000 contro-
versy over the Georgetown game and Classic played during the
Christmas holidays. Dr. Brad Rothermel, Athletic Director,
explained that UNLV wanted Georgetown to play in the Classic
and in order to do so, had to guarantee them two games. In
order for them to play, UNLV would have to cancel Wyoming.
A return match with Georgetown is scheduled in Washington,
D. C. in December, with a possible national TV airing, which
would guarantee more revenue for UNLV in 1984. Wyoming
agreed to allow UNLV to exercise one option which was a
$60,000 payout. For the Classic, Georgetown agreed to come
to UNLV and play Marshall University for $20,000 and UNLV
for $10,000. However, UNLV is not paying Georgetown the
$30,000 this year, but will owe them that sum next year
when they play in December and which will hopefully be
nationally televised, thereby having more funds to work with
and with which to pay Georgetown for this year's games. The
advantage of this arrangement, according to Dr. Rothermel,
was to have Georgetwon present for the December Classic,
which gave additional revenue in ticket sales for the 2-day
event. Ticket sales were good -- 18,000 for the Georgetown
game and around 17,000 for the first night of the Classic.
UNLV, however, still owes $60,000 in game guarantees/payouts
next year.
Mr. Karamanos expressed is strong concern over athletic
contracts being signed without approval from the legal
staff. Mr. Mc Bride explained that such contracts as these
are administrative decisions.
Mr. Karamanos moved to approve a loan from the Capital Im-
provement Fee Funds of up to $400,000 to the UNLV Athletic
Department to be paid back with interest of the going rate
for investments on the Capital Improvement Fee Funds, with
the pay-back being completed by June 30, 1984. Reports will
be made at each Regent meeting concerning the status of this
loan. Further, that all athletics contracts at UNLV and UNR
must be approved by Legal Counsel before they are signed,
and that this will also include all letters of intent; and
further, that Counsel will report to the Board on all such
contracts. Seconded by Mrs. Fong.
Mrs. Sheerin again stated that she felt there was more than
a cash flow problem, saying that it is an operating problem,
one that involves game guarantees, payment of rental to
Thomas and Mack Center, recruiting expenditures, and team
travel not being included in the athletic budget.
Mr. Klaich stated that in the 9 months he has been a Regent,
this is the second time there has been a major contractual
difficulty that would cost the University a considerable
sum. He stressed that the University is a big business,
there are procedures in place, and they must be followed,
and that ignoring them can no longer be tolerated.
Upon voice vote, motion carried. Mrs. Sherrin voted no.
17. Chancellor's Report
Chancellor Bersi recommended that the Board designate a day
at the February meeting to be devoted to discussion of the
Legislative Report.
18. New Business
A. Mr. Karamanos requested General Counsel to review all
athletic commitments and contracts. This request is
stated in the resolutions in regard to both Campusus.
Mr. Klaich again stated that this was the second time
since he has been on the Board of a major contractual
difficulty. He requested that these ramifacations be
thoroughly thought through.
B. Mrs. Fong requested a breakdown of donors to the Thomas
and Mack Events Center. She stated that there are
differences of revenue between the convention center
and the events center.
C. Mrs. Kenney requested a freeze on all hiring at UNLV in
administrative positions. Chairman Mc Bride stated that
this would be placed on the next agenda for discussion.
19. Emergency Item Regarding Lease, UNR
President Crowley requested an emergency item.
Mrs. Gallagher moved approval. Mrs. Whitley seconded.
Motion carried.
Chairman Mc Bride relinquished the gavel to Vice Chairman
Gallagher.
Approved a lease-hold agreement between UNR and XEBEC
Corporation for the establishment of a Computer Aided Design
facility within the College of Engineering and directed
that the lease agreement be reviewed by General Counsel,
and approved by the Chairman of the Board.
Mr. Karamanos moved approval of a lease agreement between
UNR and XEBEC Corporation, to be reviewed by General Counsel
and approved by the Chancellor, then forwarded to the Chair-
man of the Board for approval. Mrs. Kenney seconded. Mo-
tion carried.
Chairman Mc Bride retained the gavel.
The meeting adjourned at 11:45 A.M.
Mary Lou Moser
Secretary of the Board
01-12-1984