01/12/1984

UCCSN Board of Regents' Meeting Minutes
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