01/23/1981

UCCSN Board of Regents' Meeting Minutes
January 23-24, 1981








01-23-1981

Pages 10-32

BOARD OF REGENTS

UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA SYSTEM

January 23, 1981



The Board of Regents met on the above date in the Center for

Religion and Life, 1101 North Virginia, Reno.



Members present: Mr. Robert A. Cashell, Chairman

Mr. James L. Buchanan, II

Ms. Frankie Sue Del Papa

Mrs. Lilly Fong

Mrs. Dorothy Gallagher

Mr. John R. Mc Bride

Mr. John Tom Ross

Mrs. June F. Whitley



Members absent: Mr. Chris Karamanos



Others present: Chancellor Donald H. Baepler

President William Berg, NNCC

President Joseph Crowley, UNR

President Jack Davis, WNCC

President Jim Eardley, TMCC

President Judith Eaton, CCCC

President Leonard Goodall, UNLV

President Clifford Murino, DRI

Mr. Larry Lessly, Vice Chancellor for Legal

Affairs

Mrs. Bonnie Smotony, Secretary of the Board



Also present were Faculty Senate and Student Body Organization

representatives from each of the Institutions.



The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cashell at 10:20 A.M.



1. Adoption of Consent Agenda



Adoption of the Consent Agenda (identified as Ref. A. and

filed with permanent minutes) was recommended. The Consent

Agenda contained the following items:



(1) Approval of the minutes of the special meetings of

December 17 and December 30, 1981, and the minutes of

the meeting of January 12, 1981.



(2) Acceptance of gifts and grants.



(3) Reappointment of the following members to the College

of Arts and Science Advisory Board for three-year

terms:



Steve Brown, Sparks

Fred Davis, Jr., Reno

Mary Gojack, Reno

Clark Hamilton, Reno

Moya Lear, Stead

Kay Winters, Dayton



(4) Appointment of Regent Dorothy Gallagher as liaison to

the College of Agriculture Citizens Advisory Board and

of Regent John Mc Bride and Regent Lilly Fong as liai-

son to the School of Medicine Advisory Board.



President Berg reported a gift of $1000 from Mrs. Reba

Lundberg, in memory of her late husband, Ted, to be used by

NNCC for scholarships.



President Crowley reported an offer by Mrs. Louis E. Lomax

of a gift of her late husband's working papers, library,

manuscripts and memorabilia to UNR, with her request that

the collection would be available as a resource to UNR stu-

dents, faculty, and others who may have occasion to use

them.



Ms. Del Papa moved adoption of the Consent Agenda, includ-

ing the additional gifts reported by Presidents Berg and

Crowley. Motion seconded by Mrs. Fong, carried without

dissent.



The Board adjourned and convened as the Nevada Higher Education

Facilities Commission, then reconvened as the Board of Regents.



2. Design Development Drawings, Phase IV, School of Medicine,

UNR



Design development drawings for this project were presented

by Mr. Ron Mentgen, from the architectural firm of Anshen

and Allen. Following that presentation, and discussion

among Board members, President Crowley recommended approval

of the drawings and authorization to proceed with the proj-

ect. Dr. Crowley noted that the project is funded with

$2 million from the Fleischmann Foundation and $2 million

in gift funds from Mr. Claude Howard.



Mrs. Fong moved approval. Motion seconded by Mrs. Whitley,

carried without dissent.



3. Revision of Board of Regents Bylaws



Chancellor Baepler recalled that in October, 1980, the

System Administration Study Committee submitted a final

report containing a recommended position description for

the Chancellor. This description was approved by the Board

and, together with an amendment to the Presidents' duties

and responsibilities, was incorporated into a proposed

amendment to the Board of Regents Bylaws and submitted

for first reading at the November 6, 1980 meeting. As a

result of a proposal by the Chancellor Search Committee,

approved by the Board at the December 13, 1980 meeting, a

further revision to the Bylaws was proposed and treated as

a "first reading", with final approval to occur following

the necessary 30 days notice. Chancellor Baepler reported

that the Bylaws amendment was now ready for adoption (pro-

posed revision included with agenda, identified as Ref. B).



Ms. Del Papa moved approval. Motion seconded by Mr. Mc

Bride, carried without dissent.



For the purposes of the minute record, Article VI of the

Board of Regents Bylaws, as amended by the above action, is

reflected below.



ARTICLE VI



Officers of the University of Nevada System



Designation Section 1. The Officers are the Chancellor

of Nevada System and Presidents of the Uni-

versity of Nevada, Reno; the University of

Nevada, Las Vegas; the Desert Research Insti-

tute; Clark County Community College; North-

ern Nevada Community College; Truckee Meadows

Community College; and Western Nevada Commu-

nity College.



Appointment Section 2. The Officers of the University

shall be appointed by, and shall serve at

the pleasure of, the Board of Regents. In

making such appointments the Board shall

follow the recruiting and screening for these

Officers specified in the University Code.



Chancellor Section 3. The Chancellor is responsible

for the administration of the University of

Nevada System and implementation of the

Board's policies. Duties are prescribed by

the Board of Regents and include the follow-

ing:



a. To promote a sound plan of organization

in concert with the Presidents to insure

administrative efficiency, maximum util-

ization of resources, and to facilitate

cooperation among member institutions;



b. To coordinate the preparation of all

operating and capital budgets and System

planning documents for Board review.

However, the member institutions are

autonomous with respect to curricular

decisions involving existing programs;



c. To coordinate the presentation of all

University System matters to the Gover-

nor's Office and the State Legislature;



d. To sign all contracts and other instru-

ments requiring execution on behalf of

the Board of Regents;



e. To be the Treasurer of the University

and to provide for internal and inde-

pendent audits; however, appointment of

independent auditors shall be subject to

approval of the Board of Regents;



f. To review the execution of all University

budgets to insure that the intent of the

Board of Regents and the Legislature has

been carried out;



g. To coordinate the preparation of the a-

genda of all meetings of the Board of

Regents;



h. To be responsible for official communi-

cations on behalf of the Board of Re-

gents, excepting personnel actions;



i. To be the appointing authority for all

professional personnel not assigned to

a member institution. The member insti-

tutions are autonomous with respect to

their own personnel decisions;



j. To evaluate and make recommendations to

the Board of Regents concerning the per-

formance and conditions of employment of

the Presidents of member institutions;

and



k. To perform such additonal duties as

the Board may direct.



Presidents Section 4. The President of each member

institution shall be the Chief Administra-

tive Officer of his institution, and shall

report to the Board of Regents. Duties

shall include the following:



a. To provide leadership in the planning

and implementation necessary for the

successful operation of the member in-

stitution and to insure that the insti-

tution develops to its potential;



b. To be the appointing authority for all

professional personnel in the member

institution, subject only to the Code,

and to execute personnel contracts;



c. To review the quality of performance of

all professional personnel in the member

institution and to either take final

action or recommend action to the Board

of Regents on personnel matters in con-

formity with the Code;



d. To make recommendations concerning all

budgets in the member institution and to

administer approved budgets;



e. To transfer budget credits, which in his

judgment are no longer necessary, to the

appropriate contingency reserve and to

transfer budget credits from the contin-

gency reserve to functional accounts,

subject only to the condition that trans-

fers of $10,000 or more or which cumula-

tively equal $10,000 or more within each

object code during one fiscal year shall

require Board approval;



f. To authorize the transmission of appli-

cations or requests for grants, contracts

of gifts to individuals, foundations,

corporations, and the Federal government;



g. To be the principal spokesman for the

member institution and to represent the

institution before the Board of Regents,

the Legislature and all other appropriate

bodies;



h. To perform such additional duties as the

Board may direct.



Relationships Section 5. It is the intent of the Board

of the that the Officers work together for the best

Officers interests of the University of Nevada System

and the achievement of its objectives. The

Chancellor shall have no authority over, nor

make any recommendations concerning, person-

nel decisions within a member institution or

curricular decisions involving existing pro-

grams within a member institution. In these

areas, the Chancellor shall transmit the

President's recommendations to the Board

without comment, assuring only that the

Board's policies are followed in the pres-

entation and transmission of such material.

In all other areas requiring Board action,

the Presidents shall submit their recom-

mendations for inclusion on the Board's

agenda, and the Chancellor shall also make

his recommendations known to the Board. All

Officers shall have direct access to the

Board at all times.



4. Report of Regent's Committee to Develop Officer Assessment

Evaluation Procedures



At its meeting of March 28, 1980, the Board directed that an

ad hoc committee of the Board, in consultation with the

Chancellor and the Presidents, develop a procedure for Offi-

cer assessment/evaluation. Mrs. Fong, who Chairs the com-

mittee, reported that an evaluation document for the Chan-

cellor had been developed, had been reviewed by the Officers

and was included with the agenda (identified as Ref. C. and

filed with permanent minutes). She requested consideration

and approval by the Board.



In response to Ms. Del Papa's question concerning the ade-

quacy of this document in meeting legal and affirmative

action requirements, Mr. Lessly stated that there was no

problem from either standpoint.



Mrs. Whitley moved approval. Motion seconded by Mr. Mc

Bride, carried without dissent.



5. Report of Status of Grant Applications



In response to a request at the December meeting, reports

were submitted by each of the Presidents concerning the

status of federal grant applications and are on file.

Chairman Cashell recalled that the reason for the request

was to determine if there are ways in which the Board can

assist in increasing the level of funding realized by the

various institutions from federal granting agencies.



President Eaton stated that while the Community Colleges

have a fair level of activity in certain areas of federal

grants; such as student financial aid grants, none of the

Colleges have anyone assigned as a full-time Endowment

Officer. She suggested that if the focus was to be in any

given area, it should be on grants that would bring money

in for programs, curriculum and staff development within

the Colleges.



President Goodall suggested that where there is a research

interest, it is important to provide a mechanism of grant

support, both money and in staff who know the system and

know how to work with the faculty in getting grants. He

spoke about the desirability of strengthening the contacts

in Washington.



In response to a suggestion by Chairman Cashell that the

Chancellor's Advisory Cabinet could develop a proposal for

ways in which such assistance could be secured, President

Crowley recalled that this matter had been discussed previ-

ously in the Cabinet and agreement had been reached that it

would be useful to have a Washington-based representative;

however, no conclusion had been reached on whether it ought

to be at the institution or System level.



Chancellor Baepler agreed that this had been an issue for

the past two years, but doubted that it could be concluded,

as suggested by Chairman Cashell, in time to have a final

recommendation at the February meeting. It was agreed, how-

ever, that the Cabinet could bring a report in February on

some alternatives and the problems relating to these alter-

natives.



6. Proposal for Appointment of Ad Hoc System Committee on Fees



Chancellor Baepler endorsed a proposal by President Crowley

that the Board approve the appointment of an ad hoc System

Committee to deal with the subject of fees and tuition, to

examine both the question of appropriate fee and tuition

levels for 1981-82 and 1982-83 and the question of whether

a more systematic approach to the setting of fees and tui-

tion would be desirable for the University of Nevada System.

It was suggested that such a Committee could report its

recommendation in a timely fashion so as to allow proper

planning for the Biennial Budgets and for implementation of

any recommended systematic approach.



Mr. Ross moved approval for the establishment of the Commit-

tee as proposed. Motion seconded by Mr. Mc Bride, carried

without dissent.



Chancellor Baepler reported that the Committee would be com-

posed of Mr. David Wilkins, representing TMCC, WNCC and

NNCC; Keith Evans, representing CCCC; Vice President Jessup,

representing UNR; and Vice President Westfall, representing

UNLV, with two students, one from the Universities and one

from Community Colleges.



7. Agreement for Water Service



Mr. Lessly reported that Sierra Pacific Power Company has

requested an agreement be executed whereby Sierra Pacific's

certified water service territory will be expanded to in-

clude certain land at the Dandini Research Park upon which

the DRI facility and the TMCC Campus are located. The pro-

posed agreement contains a provision whereby any further

expansion by the University of Nevada System in the area

requiring water service by Sierra Pacific will be condition-

ed upon the transfer of sufficient water rights from the

University to Sierra Pacific.



Ms. Del Papa moved approval. Motion seconded by Mrs.

Gallagher, carried without dissent.



8. Scholarship Report for 1979-80



Dr. Robert Mc Queen, UNR Scholarship Chairman, presented a

summary of the 1979-80 Scholarship Report which was distri-

buted with the agenda, noting that the number of endowed

scholarship accounts increased 16% over the 1978-79 academic

year, and that $753,000 in scholarships had been distribut-

ed, an increase of $100,000 over the previous year. The

average stipend increased by nearly 20% as a result of a

deliberate effort by the Scholarship Board to increase the

value of the scholarships in concert with the increase in

educational costs.



In response to a question from Mr. Ross concerning the in-

terest earnings on the endowed scholarships, Dr. Mc Queen

recalled that the Board had recently adopted a policy which

restricts the distribution of scholarships endowment earn-

ings to 6%, with the balance returned to the corpus of the

account.



Chancellor Baepler referred to an article in a recent issue

of The Chronicle for Higher Education which he said indicat-

ed that most institutions in times of inflation and high

interest rates are limiting the distribution of interest

earnings to 6% in order to keep the accounts from being

eroded by inflation. He agreed to provide a copy of that

study to each of the Regents.



Mr. Ross suggested that perhaps the Board ought to suspend

its recently adopted policy on distribution of scholarship

endowment earnings.



Dr. Crowley pointed out that the University will be looking

at a number of possibilities for increases, not just in the

per-credit fee, but also in other areas where the students

are assessed charges. He suggested that perhaps in light

of the heavy financial burden for students next year, the

Board might wish to delay application of the policy for one

year.



Chancellor Baepler requested that before the Board makes any

decision in this area, they review a copy of a report from

Stanford with respect to this matter, which he said he would

obtain and forward to them.



Chairman Cashell expressed the Board's appreciation and

commended Dr. Mc Queen for his effective management of the

UNR Scholarship Program.



9. Proposed Organization Changes, UNR



President Crowley recalled that one of the matters consid-

ered by the Administrative Review Team in the report pre-

sented to the Board of Regents in 1980, was the possible

reorganization of the Office of Continuing Education. The

major question involved was whether the basic functions of

this Office should be responsible to the Vice President

for Academic Affairs, as is the case in most Universities,

or to the Vice President for Public Affairs, as has been the

case in recent years at UNR. The Team recommended that or-

ganizational changes not be considered until after the new

Vice President for Academic Affairs had arrived and has had

an opportunity to review such changes. A postponement of

such consideration was suggested also by the reorganization

that created the Office of Vice President for Public Affairs

and invested in that Office significant new responsibilities

that had not been part of the position previously, when its

title was Vice President for University Services.



President Crowley reported that since that time, in consul-

tation with the two Vice Presidents involved, and other in-

terested parties, there has been an opportunity to review

the principal organizational issues. Based on that review,

he offered the following recommendations:



1. That reponsibility for the Office of Continuing Educa-

tion be transferred from the Vice President for Public

Affairs to the Vice President for Academic Affairs,

with the exception of the functions noted in #2 below.

The functions to be transferred include:



a. Conferences and Institutes

b. Community Development

c. Independent Study by Correspondence

d. Off-Campus Programs

e. Summer Session

f. Intensive English Language Center



2. That the following functions, now part of the Office of

Continuing Education, be continued as responsibilities

of the Vice President for Public Affairs:



a. College Inn

b. Flammable Liquids Fire Academy (Stead)

c. State Fire Service Training Program (Stead)

d. Alumni College



A chart showing the organizational pattern which results

from the above proposed changes was distributed and is filed

with permanent minutes.



Mrs. Gallagher moved approval. Motion seconded by Mrs.

Fong, carried without dissent.



10. Proposal for Establishment of a Pub at UNR



ASUN President Stephanie Brown requested the Board's approv-

al for the establishment of a Pub, to be located in a small

area of the Snack Bar in the Jot Travis Student Union. De-

tails of the proposal, including costs, were included with

the agenda.



President Crowley recommended approval of the proposal,

with a follow-up evaluation toward the end of the Spring

semester to determine whether the Pub should be continued,

and, if so, what changes might be necessary in its concept

and operating policies.



Mr. Mc Bride moved approval, with the conditions that it

meets all legal and health requirments and that the Board

of Regents is adequately protected by securing liability

insurance and that the follow-up suggested by President

Crowley occur at the end of the Spring semester. Motion

seconded by Mrs. Fong, carried without dissent.



11. Public Educational Television Consortium



President Crowley recalled that at its December meeting the

Board of Regents approved a recommendation authorizing UNR

to participate in a consortium which will apply for grants

and licensing for public educational television in the Reno-

Sparks area. Subsequently, it was determined that, for

licensing purposes, it would be necessary for the consorti-

um to be incorporated. In addition, Dr. Crowley recalled,

representatives of UNR and Truckee Meadows Community College

were to be involved in the consortium Board of Directors and

they would now be involved on the Corporation Board. From

the University's point of view, these changes do not signify

any substantive alteration of the original plans and pur-

poses which were approved by the Board of Regents in that

the changes are largely technical in nature. However,

President Crowley noted that upon consultation with Univer-

sity Counsel, it seemed appropriate to seek the Board's

approval of these changes.



In the discussion following, it was agreed that it would be

appropriate to provide for the participation of WNCC and

that President Crowley, President Eardley and President

Davis would be designated as members of the Board of

Directors representing their respective institutions, and

that liability insurance would be secured.



Mrs. Fong moved approval. Motion seconded by Mrs. Ross,

carried without dissent.



12. Proposed Legislative Requests



Chancellor Baepler recalled that the 1979 Legislature had

adopted Senate Bill 255 which had, because of some lack of

clarity in the language, caused some problems for the Uni-

versity with respect to its ability to spend gift monies

received by the various institutions. He requested that

the Board authorize the Administration to seek legislation

to amend SB 255 to exclude the University System from all

its provisions, if possible, but at a minimum to clarify

those provisions as they affect the System.



Ms. Del Papa moved approval. Motion seconded by Mrs.

Gallagher, carried without dissent.



Chancellor Baepler also asked the Board to approve a request

for legislation which would make membership in TIAA-CREF op-

tional for faculty during their first two years of service

with UNS. He explained that frequently the University has

professional employees on grant money who remain with the

System only for the term of the grant and if that period of

time is short enough, for example, two or three years, the

employee can regain his contributions to TIAA. TIAA has

now been advised by the Internal Revenue Service that such

individuals would lose their tax sheltered privileges under

this procedure and will thus no longer be able to recover

their first two-year' contributions.



Mr. Lessly suggested that if this is to be considered by

the Board, it would first have to be declared as an emer-

gency item since it does not appear on the Board's agenda.

He further recommended that the implications for payment

of social security benefits for such employees be examined

before any action is taken by the Board. It was agreed that

this matter could be deferred until February to permit fur-

ther consideration by the Administration.



Ms. Del Papa asked about the legislative matters which the

Board had requested.



Chancellor Baepler reported that the one shot equipment re-

quests have been submitted and will be part of the Univer-

sity's presentation to the Legislative Money Committees, as

will the new program requests. He agreed to provide copies

of the requests to the Regents.



Dr. Baepler reported that the catch-up faculty salary re-

quest had been recalculated at 12.9%, which is a $4.8 mil-

lion retroactive package, and the request would be intro-

duced to the two Money Committees by representatives of the

System Compensation Committee, Dr. Paul Page and Dr. Gary

Jones, along with himself.



In response to a question concerning the status of the pro-

posal to repeal the 95% rule, Chancellor Baepler stated that

the University is pledged to lobby for that. He noted that

there are a great many people interested in it and a lot of

effort is expected to be expended. He stated that he as-

sumed the counties would introduce the legislation.



Ms. Del Papa suggested that since this is a high priority

with the Regents and is a very critical piece of legislation

for the whole system, the University ought to request its

introduction. Chancellor Baepler agreed to check on its

status and if nothing had been introduced, he would seek to

have it introduced on behalf of the University.



Dr. Baepler reported that the proposal to have California

travel treated as in-state travel was turned down by the

Governor.



There was discussion concerning additional legislative re-

quests which had been proposed by the Board, including the

subsidy for Law School students, Regents' per diem, amend-

ment to the Open Meeting Law to permit Regents to handle

investment matters by telephone poll and to discuss legal

matters in personnel session, and agreed to include a full

report of the Legislative Program with the February agenda.



It was agreed that the February 27 Board meeting would be

held on the Western Nevada Community College Campus.



The meeting adjourned for lunch and a meeting of the Investment

Advisory Committee and reconvened at 1:10 P.M.



13. Presentation by Special Tax Counsel



Vice Chancellor Larry Lessly introduced Mr. David Thomas,

representing the firm of Sherman and Howard, the attorneys

retained to advise the Board on tax matters pertaining to

proposed foundations.



Mr. Thomas stated that to provide the type of benefits the

Regents desire, the foundations set up must meet two major

requirements under the Tax Code:



1. The foundations must qualify as tax-exempt organiza-

tions; that is, the organization must be organized

solely for educational or charitable purposes and that

there be no benefit to any individual by reason of the

operation of the foundation.



2. The foundations must be recognized as public charities

rather than private foundations. A major problem here

is that foundations are considered to be private unless

it can be demonstrated that they are public endeavors.



There are two ways to qualify as a public charity, thereby

giving the maximum tax benefit to potential donors and a-

voiding the restriction of limiting a donor's tax benefits

to only 20% of his adjusted gross income with no carry-over

from year to year as is true with private foundations.



The first requirement applies directly to the University

foundations. That is, an organization is a public charity

and not a private foundation if it is a State University

supported organization. It must be organized to receive

and administer property solely for the benefit of the public

University. Secondly, the foundations must receive their

financial support from a broad range of governmental and

public sources as opposed to having the support coming ex-

clusively from investment income.



Mr. Thomas indicated that while the University must meet

the technical requirements under the Tax Code, there are

no specific restrictions or requirments with respect to the

control that the Board might exercise over the foundations.

He further stated that if the University meets these re-

quirements, it is free to structure the entity in order to

accomplish its goals.



In answer to questions from the Board, Mr. Thomas stated

that it makes good sense to have the Board oversee the

structuring of these foundations, however the final decision

as to whether the Board exercises strong control is not dic-

tated by Tax Law. He pointed out that the all important re-

quirement here is that no funds be knowingly or unwittingly

used for purposes other than for the benefit of the Univer-

sity.



President Crowley stated that it was his understanding that

the Board had conditionally consented to the establishment

of foundations and that the proposal he had brought to the

Board had assured substantial Board control, including ap-

proval of the Bylaws and amendments and Board of Directors.



Mr. Thomas stated that he was inclined to believe that the

control question should be set forth in the charter docu-

ments and, if needed, adjustment could be made on an insti-

tution by institution basis. In essence the University

would have uniform charter documents and customized agree-

ments. He believed that this would make sense, but is not

a requirement for a tax standpoint.



Mr. Buchanan moved that the firm of Sherman and Howard be

authorized to prepare a set of Bylaws and conditions and

requirements which are tailor-made to the University System

to be approved by the Board of Regents. If the Board ap-

proves this set of Bylaws, then the Presidents can come

forth with proposals for foundations knowing the parameters.

Mr. Buchanan stated that his motion was to develop a stand-

ard set of Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation and controls

and does not include a memorandum of understanding because

each Campus may be different.



Mr. Mc Bride seconded the motion.



In response to Mrs. Fong's question, it was agreed that the

Bylaws will state the financial responsibility and accounta-

bility of the foundations to the Regents.



Mr. Thomas stated that he would propose coming back to the

Board in February with Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws

and a one-page description of what issues a memorandum of

agreement might deal with.



Chairman Cashell requested that Vice Chancellor Lessly work

with the Presidents to determine what they believed the

agreements should include.



Motion carried without dissent.



14. Report of Finance Committee



Ms. Del Papa reported that the Finance Committee had met

earlier in the day and had taken the following action:



1. Received a Quarterly Report of State Funds from the

Financial Accounting Services Committee. Mr. Scott,

Chairman of the Financial Accounting Services Commit-

tee, will arrange for a short presentation to be made

to the next meeting of the Finance Committee summar-

izing the Quarterly Report and commenting on any prob-

lem areas which have been revealed in the Report.



2. Discussed the proposals which had been received from

accounting firms wishing to be considered for the next

independent audit cycle, and agreed that presentations

from the following four firms would be scheduled at a

special meeting to occur within the next two to three

weeks:



Haskins and Sells

Kafoury Armstrong and Company

Alexander Grant and Company

Mc Gladrey Hendrickson and Company



3. Requested the Officers to be prepared in September to

discuss with the Finance Committee their proposals on

budget parameters and procedures which would guide the

development of the 1983-85 Biennial Budget Request.



Mr. Buchanan moved approval of the report of the Finance

Committee. Motion seconded by Mrs. Whitley, carried without

dissent.



Chairman Cashell asked that the Finance Committee accept the

responsibility for development of criteria for the expendi-

ture of funds from the Board of Regents Special Projects

Account and that a report be made back to the February meet-

ing after consultation with the Presidents.



15. Report of Investment Advisory Committee



Mrs. Fong reported that the Investment Advisory Committee

met at noon and that, at Chairman Cashell's request, she

had acted as Chairman in the absence of Mr. Karamanos, with

Mr. Mc Bride and Mrs. Gallagher appointed as temporary mem-

bers to serve in place of the other absent members.



The Committee took the following actions:



1. Received reports from Mr. Monte Miller, Mr. Bob Lee and

Mr. Tom Josephsen on the portfolios managed by Valley

Bank, FNB and Security Bank, respectively, and on cur-

rent economic conditions. None of these managers wish-

ed to recommend a change in their portfolios at the

present time.



2. Received a presentation by Mr. John Chrissinger of NNB,

which renewed its proposal, made two years ago, that "it

be retained to manage a significant portion of the Uni-

versity of Nevada's endowment fund.'



After some discussion, it was decided to table this

matter until the next meeting. Mr. Mc Bride and Mrs.

Gallagher were of the opinion that a vote on the Com-

mittee's recommendation concerning NNB's proposal should

wait until the regularly appointed Committee members can

be present. It was the consensus, however, that the

Committee should in any event carefully monitor the per-

formance of the banks which are retained to manage the

University's endowment funds.



Mr. Buchanan moved acceptance of the Investment Committee's

report. Motion seconded by Ms. Del Papa, carried without

dissent.



Mr. Cashell reported that Mr. Ross had declared a conflict

which would prevent his service on the Investment Advisory

Board. Accordingly, a substitute appointment would be an-

nounced shortly.



16. Discussion Concerning 1981-83 Biennial Budget



Chairman Cashell recalled that the discussion of the Gover-

nor's recommendation concerning the University's 1981-83

Biennial Budget Request was not completed at the January 12

meeting. He requested that Chancellor Baepler present a

short introductory statement, after which each President

would be asked to cover the appropriation areas under his

administration.



Chancellor Baepler recalled that at the previous meeting

Vice Chancellor Partridge had presented an overall review

of the budget picture and had distributed information re-

lating to the System. Dr. Baepler suggested that there are

five areas of concern which need to be addressed from a

System perspective. He suggested that all are equally im-

portant and difficult to prioritize. With respect to facul-

ty salaries, Dr. Baepler stated that the University is

reaching a situation where it is not competitive and it is

the Administration's intention to pursue the faculty sal-

ary package included in the Regent-approved budget request.



Secondly, of concern to all Nevada institutions is the gen-

eral concept of student-faculty ratios which are at the

heart of education quality and every effort will be made be-

fore the Legislature for sufficient funding. A third area

of concern, one which is critical, is the support positions

which have been requested; i. e., nonteaching professional

and classified positions. Fourth, sufficient money to off-

set inflation, both from the perspective of the way in

which inflation has eroded the University System during

this current biennium and the required money to keep pace

with the expected rate of inflation during the coming bi-

ennium.



Finally, the critical problem in projecting revenues and

projecting student enrollments caused by the question of

student fees. If revenues drop because a lower fee than

projected by the Legislature is charged, or fees are raised

so much that there is a drop in both in-state and out-of-

state enrollment, it will have a critical impact on the

University's budget.



Mr. Buchanan suggested that prior to presentations by the

Presidents concerning their institutional budgets, the Board

ought to determine whether or not there will be any fee in-

crease and, if so, to what level. He expressed his own

opposition to a fee increase. Mr. Cashell agreed that a fee

increase was not desirable, and suggested that until the ad

hoc Committee established to review this matter reports back

the Board should hold with its position reflected in the

University's budget request.



Chancellor Baepler suggested that if a conclusion could be

reached at the February meeting, that would allow sufficient

time to develop the necessary negotiations with the Legis-

lature.



There appeared to be consensus that a strong effort should

be made to avoid a fee increase, and that any action by the

Board to alter its budget request in the area of projected

revenues would not occur until after the ad hoc Committee

had reported to the Board in February.



President Crowley spoke concerning the problems which are

anticipated by UNR should the funding provided by the Legis-

lature be less than requested. In addition to the items

mentioned by the Chancellor as having a System-wide effect,

President Crowley spoke about the problem which will occur

in the grant-in-aid area. In the Executive Budget, fees

and tuition are increased but there is no commensurate

increase in grants-in-aid. This leaves a shortfall for

UNR of $170,000 if the size of the grant-in-aid is matched

to the size of the Governor's recommended fee and tuition

increase.



If fees are not increased to the level recommended by the

Governor, the shortfall is even greater. This produces a

severe impact on the grant-in-aid program, particularly in

the Athletic Program.



A second problem for UNR, which again goes beyond the con-

fines of UNR, is the book acquisition budget. The Executive

Budget proposes an amount equal to this year's level of book

acquisition support which is in effect a 20% decline in sup-

port in that area due to inflation.



President Crowley recalled that the initial recommendation

in the Executive Budget eliminated the entire University

alumni relations set of Offices both at UNR and UNLV. There

has been significant restoration although there are still

some shortages in operating funds with two Offices at UNR

left totally unfunded -- the Office of School Relations,

which was established in response to a clear demand on the

part of the people in the public schools, and the Office of

Information.



The overall Medical School budget is in better shape than

the basic budget, but it does have some specific problems.

Letters of appointment category has been eliminated, and

funding supporting the administrative structure of the

Medical School in Las Vegas has been cut. The other UNR

budget areas, with the exception of Business Center - North,

take a 10% decrease, causing the most serious problems in

Cooperative Extension and Agricultural Experiment Stations.



President Crowley stated that the two most serious problems

overall are the student-faculty ratio and the student fee

problem. As an example of the magnitude of what the stu-

dent fee problem would be if the Board of Regents imposes

the increase in fees and tuition proposed in the Executive

Budget, and if there is a resulting decrease in enrollment

because of that increase, UNR would end up with a shortfall

on the first of September with no way of projecting the

amount of shortfall which might occur and no source of funds

to cover it. On the other hand, if the Board declines to

raise tuition and fees, and if the proposed appropriation

bottom line contained in the Executive Budget is not in-

creased by the Legislature, then UNR would have a $1.8

million shortfall.



Dr. Crowley spoke of the difficulty of making the right kind

of management decisions when it is not possible to accurate-

ly project at this time the magnitude of the shortfall which

will occur. In addition to the fee and tuition problem,

there are serious problems with the 22 to 1 student-faculty

ratio. If that ratio is enforced, UNR is looking at a de-

cline of 9.65 professional positions, a problem which can

be complicated still further by the uncertainty of the tu-

ition and fee problem.



The two Colleges which would suffer most by a limit in en-

rollment, which is one of the alternatives under study,

would be the Business Administration and Engineering Col-

leges -- the high growth program. These are the Colleges

which have over the past five years been meeting the demands

of the Nevada economy. The Colleges cannot add more stu-

dents without additional faculty or they run the risk of

losing accreditation. If you attempt to solve the problem

of faculty retrenchment by termination of first year facul-

ty, you endanger those programs even more because a dispor-

tionate number of the vacancies and the first year faculty

are in the high growth programs such as Business and Engi-

neering.



Dr. Crowley commented on the alternative of elimination of

high cost, low enrollment programs, pointing out that a re-

ducation of 30+ positions represents 10% of the instruction-

al staff, and there are not enough programs to absorb that

by attempting to distribute the reductions among all pro-

grams. Neither is there sufficient flexibility to permit

elimination of total programs since UNR has essentially the

standard type and number of Departments found in a basic

State University.



In response to a question concerning the impact on the Uni-

versity in two years, when the mandatory retirement age

increases to 70, President Crowley agreed that the problem

would be compounded by that factor. He pointed out that

the current Executive Budget will require the elimination

of approximately 60 positions Systemwide. The cumulative

impact of those reductions, plus the implications of the

change in policy in 1982 moving the mandatory retirement age

upward from 65 to 70, are going to be felt by the University

and the State as far in the future perhaps as 10, 20 years.



Dr. Goodall indicated that UNLV was also concerned with the

area of faculty salaries and student-faculty ratios plus an

additional four areas of specific budget needs, one of which

is the Library. UNLV will be opening an addition to the Li-

brary very shortly; however, no increase was recommended in

the book acquisitions budget and a decrease of one profes-

sional position from the present staffing make it very dif-

ficult to adequately staff and equip the new facility.



A further area of particular concern to UNLV is in the area

of Janitorial and Maintenance services. In addition to the

new Library facility, a Fine Arts building is presently un-

der construction and will be completed during the biennium.

The Executive Budget, however, recommends the reduction of

the Janitorial staff from 56 to 36. Chancellor Baepler

pointed out that the Executive Budget also assumes a 5%

vacancy rate at any given time, so that the staff available

would be less than 36.



The Alumni and Development Office at UNLV has been, as is

also the case at UNR, reinstated in the Executive Budget at

a level of 50% funding. Dr. Goodall stated that at the time

the Campuses are being requested to go into the private sec-

tor to do more and more fund raising, fewer personnel are

being provided to do the job.



President Goodall stated that probably the biggest problem

area in the budget is the uncertainty about student fees,

and agreed with what President Crowley had earlier stated

about not being able to predict what the result of a student

fee increase would be in terms of funds available, but that

the shortfall would be approximately $5,400,000 the first

year if the fee increase assumption of the Governor's

Budget is not accepted. This would not be known until the

Fall registration. He further stated that, as at UNR, the

personnel cuts and enrollment limitations would have to be

made in the high growth Departments, which at UNLV are in

the areas of Business, Allied Health and the Computer

Sciences.



Chairman Cashell questioned whether UNLV should accept the

new Library facility, suggesting that perhaps this building

should remain under the control of the State Public Works

Board and its reponsibility to provide insurance and main-

tenance. Mrs. Gallagher agreed, adding that perhaps none

of the new buildings, including the Henderson and Fallon

buildings, should be accepted.



In reviewing the recommendation for the DRI, President

Murino emphasized that the budget for this Division is tra-

ditionally different from that of the rest of the University

System, since it has no students for revenue and receives

only a small fraction of its support from the State. Two

new research programs were, however, approved for both years

of the biennium.



Dr. Murino stated that the DRI recommended budget is gener-

ally adequate with the exception of two areas of enrichment

of the research program. One of these areas was for equip-

ment replacement and the other for seed money to start re-

search programs prior to the time Federal and private spon-

sors are available.



Dr. Murino stated that he was satisfied with the operating

budget as recommended in light of the whole budget climate

but noted that the DRI in Las Vegas is located in crowded,

cramped, quonset-hut-type quarters with no laboratory facil-

ities. He strongly urged the Regents to push for the ap-

proval of the number one priority in the Capital Improvement

Program request, the DRI Southern Nevada facility. He fur-

ther stated that the program of maintenance and utilities

for the new building would not be the problem for the DRI

as it is for the other Divisions since DRI recovers funds

for this purpose from research projects and the State has

never contributed for this purpose.



President Eaton stated that the Executive Budget reduced the

Clark County Community College request by approximately 30%,

not taking into account an assumed addition of half a mil-

lion dollars for each year of the biennium as a result of

the recommended tuition increase which the Board has not

approved. The shortfall, therefore, would be more than half

a million dollars per year.



Dr. Eaton stated that the number one priority for Clark

County Community College is more staff; first and foremost

would be instructional staff; secondly, support staff; and,

third, classified staff. Under the present recommendation,

CCCC would have to reduce services, particularly in the out-

reach areas as well as the Cheyenne Campus. As previously

stated by Drs. Goodall and Crowley, these cuts at CCCC

would also have to be made in the high demand areas, which

at CCCC is in the business area. Dr. Eaton estimated that

it would be necessary to reduce courses and offerings to

such an extent that between 2000 and 2500 fewer students

would attend CCCC during the biennium.



Another area of concern to CCCC is in Library acquisitions.

CCCC had requested $212,000 to bring that Campus part way to

the level recommended by the Northwest Accreditation Associ-

ation; however, this item is not included in the budget rec-

ommendation.



President Eardley reported that Truckee Meadows Community

College experienced a growth in the Fall of almost 20%, but

less funding is being recommended for the next biennium than

is presently available. Even under the present funding,

students are being turned away because classes are already

filled. The other Community College Presidents indicated

that this is also true at their Campuses.



Dr. Davis referred to the earlier statements made that the

new building at Fallon should not be accepted unless addi-

tional funds were included in the budget for maintenance

and utilities. He stated that if funds are not provided to

start a new daytime program in Fallon, the program would

continue at night in the local schools and the business

programs presently being conducted in leased space would

be moved to the new building.



Dr. Davis stated that at WNCC, the major concern with the

Executive Budget is in the area of staffing. He estimated

that the shortfall for WNCC would be $140,000 the first

year and approximately $125,000 the second year.



President Berg also stated that staffing is the biggest

concern for Northern Nevada Community College. The budget

request for NNCC contained 30 professional positions; how-

ever, the Executive Budget contained 24.3 instructional

positions, plus one Counselor, causing a reduction of 4.7

fewer than requested and .7 fewer than the current staff-

ing.



Another problem area at NNCC is in the travel budget. It

was pointed out to the Budget Office that each trip to Las

Vegas costs approximately $500 per person and with six meet-

ings per year that more than takes the whole travel budget;

however, no additional funds were recommended for this ac-

count.



Regent Del Papa asked Chancellor Baepler for details regard-

ing the shortfall of $200,000 in the System Administration

budget.



Chancellor Baepler explained that two professional positions

and one and one half classified positions had been eliminat-

ed. He stated that although the State Budget Office did not

identify the positions recommended for elimination, through

the process of totalling salaries it was possible to deter-

mine that the positions recommended for elimination were

the Director of Institutional Research and the University

Architect. He further explained that possibly the Gover-

nor's reasoning behind eliminating the Architect's position

was that there was no capital improvement funding being rec-

ommended for the University System for the next biennium.



Ms. Del Papa expressed her concern also of the fact that no

funds for litigation expense had been included in the Uni-

versity System request, stating that she believed it to be

poor planning to continue to fund this activity through the

Regents Special Projects Fund as has been the practice in

the past. Chancellor Baepler stated that litigation expens-

es had never been funded in the past.



Chancellor Baepler stated that the one bright spot in the

University budget was at the Computing Center where approx-

imately $500,000 had been recommended. Director Niels

Anderson agreed that this funding for new equipment, time

share computers and communication processors was needed,

although the budget contains no personnel to operate them.

This leaves the Computer Center in somewhat the same situ-

ation as the other Campuses in regard to their new build-

ings.



In answer to Dr. Eaton's request as to how the Work Program

for 1981-82 should be developed, the Board directed the

Presidents to proceed on the assumption that no fee increase

has been approved although it may be necessary to revise the

Work Programs later showing some increase.



17. Report on Faculty Workload Study



Mrs. Fong reported that the ad hoc Committee to coordinate

the Faculty Workload Studies had met and were proceeding

with the necessary steps to provide a completed report to

the February 27 meeting of the Board of Regents.



18. Report on Master Planning



Mrs. Gallagher reported that the ad hoc Committee to co-

ordinate the Institutional Master Plans had met, and is

attempting to develop an overall view of the System. The

Committee will meet again on Monday and then again in two

weeks, also with the objective of having a final report for

the February 27 meeting of the Board of Regents.



19. Report of the Chairman



A. Mr. Cashell expressed concern about the increasing

amount of material distributed at Board meetings and

proposed that henceforth, unless material is transmit-

ted to the Chancellor's Office and included with the a-

genda mailing, it not be considered for action until a

subsequent meeting, unless an emergency can be demon-

strated.



B. Mr. Cashell referred to a memorandum which had been

distributed proposing an amendment to the Bylaws to

establish separate standing committees on Audit and on

Budget, by separation of the existing Finance Committee,

and on Academic Affairs and on Buildings and Grounds,

and requested that this be included on the Februay 27

agenda for action.



20. New Business



Ms. Del Papa suggested that future meetings include a period

of time for informational presentations and that a schedule

be developed so that these opportunities could be rotated

among the various institutions.



The meeting adjourned at 4:30 P.M.



Bonnie M. Smotony

Secretary of the Board

01-23-1981