UCCSN Board of Regents' Meeting Minutes
February 3-4, 1993


Pages Unnumbered



February 3-4, 1993

The Board of Regents met on the above date in the Carson Valley

Inn, Minden, Nevada for a Regents' Workshop.

Members present: Mrs. Carolyn M. Sparks, Chairman

Mrs. Shelley Berkley

Dr. Jill Derby

Mr. James Eardley

Mrs. Dorothy S. Gallagher

Mr. Madison Graves, II

Dr. Lonnie Hammargren

Mr. Daniel J. Klaich

Mrs. Nancy Price

Mrs. June F. Whitley

Members absent: Mr. Joseph M. Foley

Others present: Chancellor Mark H Dawson

President Anthony Calabro, WNCC

President Joseph Crowley, UNR

President John Gwaltney, TMCC

President Robert Maxson, UNLV

President Paul Meacham, CCSN

President Ronald Remington, NNCC

President James Taranik, DRI

Mr. Donald Klasic, General Counsel

Mr. John Richardson, Vice Chancellor

Mr. Ronald Sparks, Vice Chancellor

Ms. Mary Lou Moser, Secretary

Also present were Vice Presidents/Deans Bill Bishop (DRI), Ashok

Dhingra (UNR), William Bonaudi (NNCC), Robert Hoover (UNR), Herb

Peebles (CCSN), Lorrie Peterson (WNCC), John Scally (TMCC), John

Unrue (UNLV), and Faculty Senate Chairmen Bill Baines (TMCC),

Carolyn Collins (CCSN), Michon Mackedon (WNCC), Allen Mc Kay

(DRI), Ed Nickel (NNCC), Ellen Pillard (UNR), and Robert Skaggs


A workshop for Regents, Presidents, Academic Vice Presidents,

Faculty Senate Chairmen, the Chancellor and the Chancellor's

staff was held February 3-4, 1993 in Minden, Nevada.

1. Discussion on Academic Master Plans

Dr. Jill Derby, Chairman of the Academic Affairs Committee,

called the Academic Planning Workshop Session to order at

8:30 A.M. Thursday, February 3, 1993, with all Regents

present except Regent Joseph Foley.

Dr. Derby stressed the urgency to examine closely the aca-

demic planning activities of the Campuses. She turned the

meeting over to Vice Chancellor Richardson, who reviewed

the outline of events for the two-day workshop.

Vice Chancellor Richardson briefly reviewed the UCCSN

Planning Schedule. He stressed that the schedule includes

time frames for integration of the components of planning

adopted by the Board of Regents which include: System mis-

sion statements, academic master plans, capital construc-

tion priorities, biennial budget and legislative planning

reports. He urged all those in attendance to keep this

schedule in a prominent place and refer to it often.

Vice Chancellor Richardson cautioned that no single method

of planning is best for each institution. Planning is an

evolutionary process where the System will learn from its

mistakes, and the governing board of a multi-campus system

has a much more difficult job than does a board of a single

institution. Each institution is unique and variables dif-

fer at each. While keeping this in mind, the Board must

consider the interaction among the 7 institutions for long-

range planning.

Vice Chancellor Richardson asked that the Regents, in ex-

amining the institutional academic master plans, not focus

on the new and unusual, instead focus on everyday "nitty-

gritty" of the operations; to assess whether the plans set

direction and state a plan for growth; and to ascertain that

objectives set forth are achievable.

Vice Chancellor Richardson stressed that the Board must only

accept and approve institutional plans when they feel com-

fortable with them.


tion was given 40-45 minutes for an overview of academic

master plans on file in the Board of Regents' Office. After

each review Vice Chancellor Richardson briefly discussed

general observations, strengths of the plan and issues

which, if clarified or addressed could improve the plan.



Remington and Dean William Bonaudi presented the Northern

Nevada Community College Academic Master Plan "Challenges

of the '90's 1993-95".

Dean Bonaudi encouraged the Board of Regents to recognize

the uniqueness of each of the Community Colleges in the

State. He gave a slide presentation which included a map

depicting NNCC's 45,000 square mile service area. NNCC is

realizing a growing segment of young students right out of

high school who are selecting NNCC as their College of first


The Academic Master Planning at NNCC included input from a

wide audience from the College community and the entire

service area. The plan touches on the need to examine

housing a "University Center" at the Elko Campus and points

out the growing number of shared programs with both of the

State's Universities. It addresses the need to acquire

housing for students who must attend the main Campus for

specific programs. Dean Bonaudi discussed the importance

of contract education to programs such as the nationally

recognized diesel and welding programs which are made pos-

sible by ventures with the mining industry.

Vice Chancellor Richardson reviewed the strengths of the

plan and ways in which it could be improved. Recognizing

the signs of reduced growth over the next biennium, the

NNCC plan addresses the need for refinement and efficiency.

The plan focuses on 11 basic goals and 13 strategies.

Regents discussed the Ely Center as a perfect example of the

mission of a Community College and the community support of

education. Mr. Klaich asked that President Remington keep

the Board of Regents informed as the concept for a Univer-

sity Center on the NNCC Elko Campus is explored. Mrs.

Whitley inquired about the concept of acquiring apartment

housing near the Elko Campus and the ability of NNCC to

dedicate the apartments for student use.


Calabro and Vice President Lorrie Peterson reviewed the

Western Nevada Community College Academic Master Plan for


Vice President Peterson related that the 17,971 square mile

service area currently includes 2 Campuses, 9 Centers, 5

prison sites and multiple instructional sites. The demo-

graphic forecast indicates that the population in Gardner-

ville-Minden will equal that of Carson City by the year

2010. If WNCC is to successfully address the projected

increasing demand for higher education in that area, ground-

work must start now.

Vice President Peterson pointed out that academic planning

is limited by current facilities, and that acquiring addi-

tional facilities is a high priority in the WNCC planning

efforts. She said that System Space Need Assessments in-

dicate that WNCC has the greatest space need, yet the

State's financial inability to fund new space is forcing

the College to do more with less.

Vice President Peterson reviewed the multiple missions and

strategic directions of WNCC, and briefly discussed the

issues and strategies for strengthening of the following 5

key programs at the College:

University Transfer Programs

Applied Science and Technology

Business and Industry Partnering

Developmental Education

Community Services

Student Support Services

Vice Chancellor Richardson reviewed the strengths of the

plan and ways in which it could be improved. The plan

identifies the near term strategy for all program areas

to be consolidation and upgrading of existing programs,

with limited expansion into new program areas.

Dr. Eardley pointed out that the Tadlock Report, conducted

by outside consultants for the System in the 70's, address-

es identification of instructional sites, sharing of re-

sources, and coordinating of programs. He suggested that

a copy of this report be examined to assess its applica-

bility to the current discussions of Community College off-

campus sites.

Mrs. Gallagher suggested that University outreach programs

on Community College Campuses is not a mission of the

Community Colleges, rather it should be included in the

mission of the 2 Universities. Doug Burris, Director of

Community College Affairs, discussed how interactive tele-

vision will assist in the System outreach efforts, as well

as providing a medium for staff development, collaborative

programs and maximize use of facilities.


Gwaltney and Vice President John Scally reviewed the TMCC

Academic Master Plan - 1993-95. President Gwaltney point-

ed out that the plan was developed around the key question,

"How can TMCC best serve the needs of the community?"

Vice President Scally said that a committee established to

develop a plan for the College, addressed assessment and

enhancement of programs, and looked at the programmatic

needs of the College. Three major themes emerged in the



Faculty Development

Economic Diversity

The System strategic directions to which TMCC is committed

to support, provides the framework for accountability. Vice

President Scally stated that the parameters for planning are

restricted because of budget restraints. To offer programs

on the cutting edge TMCC plans to be flexible and more ag-

gressive in future fund raising efforts.

Dr. Derby complimented TMCC on the process used to develop

the academic master plan, and on the strategy developed to

assess accountability.

Vice Chancellor Richardson reviewed the strengths of the

plan and ways in which it could be improved. The TMCC plan

identifies the major challenges for the Campus during the

next 4 years as providing a trained workforce. Objectives

are identified for each of the areas of the College mission.

Each program and support service is given equal importance.


Meacham and Vice President Herb Peebles presented the CCSN

1993-95 Academic Master Plan. President Meacham stressed

the individuality of the Community Colleges in Nevada. He

pointed out that CCSN has a rural as well as an urban role

in the southern part of the State.

Vice President Peebles stated that a major goal in the CCSN

academic planning effort was to develop an ongoing process

for studying evolving educational needs of various compo-

nents of the service areas, and development of innovative

curricula for meeting those needs. He reviewed goals iden-

tified and objectives designed to accomplish these goals.

Vice Chancellor Richardson reviewed strengths of the plan

and ways in which it could be improved. Selected goals are

identified for each area of the Community College mission,

with specific objectives developed to accomplish these

goals. The plan calls for efforts in all 6 areas of the

mission to meet the changing and expanding educational

needs of the population, and to undertaking a leading role

in economic development efforts.

Mr. Burris wrapped up the review of Community College

academic master plans. He reiterated the need to enhance

partnership with private business by expanding programs

to meet the technical needs of the State. Each of the

Community College plans focuses on the 6 strategic direc-

tions adopted by the Board of Regents in 1992, incorporat-

ing the directions with specific goals and objectives.

Dr. Derby congratulated the Colleges on the more concise

focus of 2-year versus 4-year academic master planning

at the Community Colleges. A shorter time-frame planning

allows a closer relationship between academic planning and

economic development of the State.

Dr. Hammargren applauded the Colleges for planning efforts

on 2+2 and transfer programs. He suggested the need to

strengthen transferability among the 6 teaching institu-

tions, and asked about articulation for out-of-state stu-


Dr. Burris responded that because of the work of the trans-

fer center committees on each Campus, transfer among the

State's institutions is being addressed. However, there

are no specific set transfer policies nationally, transfer

credits are analyzed by the receiving institution's regis-

trar and faculty.

Mrs. Gallagher stated that with the advent of interactive

telecommunications and discussions of University Centers

located on Community College Campuses, it is time to ex-

amine the concept of having specific service areas.

President Calabro said that there now exists overlap in

service areas, and that when a specific course is requested

in an area the Presidents discuss which Campus can best

service that area. An example of a recent endeavor between

NNCC and CCSN to offer a rural Nursing Program was discuss-

ed. President Remington said there is room for conflict

between institutions, but thus far dialogue and cooperation

between Colleges has worked well.

Mr. Graves discussed the issue of duplication of programs

and how the use of interactive telecommunications could

reduce duplication. He congratulated the Community Colleges

for responsiveness to their service areas.

The Community College Presidents urged the Regents to ex-

amine the 6 missions upon which the academic master plans

were built as equal in importance, and reminded them that

although each Campus is unique, they all come together to

serve the needs of the citizens of the State.


Maxson and Vice President John Unrue presented the UNLV

1993-97 Academic Master Plan. President Maxson reminded

the Regents that UNLV is a young institution, once referred

to as "Tumbleweed Tech". During the past several years the

University raised $1 million every 35 days. The academic

plan which places strong emphasis on undergraduate educa-

tion, was developed at the departmental level.

Vice President Unrue reported that the Campus goals are

consistent with the Board approved strategic directions.

Goals of the Campus include greater emphasis in the several

areas such as:


Assessment and Advisement

Interactive Telecommunications

Faculty Workload

Improving Teaching Skills of Graduate Assistants

Careful Review of Existing Programs

He pointed out that, because UNLV is land-locked, the aca-

demic plan includes the need to explore the idea of a branch

Campus somewhere in the Las Vegas Valley area.

Vice Chancellor Richardson reviewed strengths of the plan

and ways in which it could be improved. The plan high-

lights aspirations in various areas. The process of setting

priorities has begun, particularly in the area of new aca-

demic programs. The emphasis of the UNLV plan is on growth

and expansion to meet the needs of the growing southern

region of the State.

Vice Chancellor Richardson's written observations on the

Universities' plans raised the question of whether it is

desirable to have two comprehensive Universities in the

State on the two University Campuses which specialize at

the graduate level. He said he often hears the question

regarding this issue.

Vice President Unrue pointed out that this is a very sensi-

tive issue at UNLV. Although the issue has never been spe-

cifically addressed by the Board of Regents, UNLV is es-

sential to the economic growth in the area of almost a

million people. He said that for many years the University

has moved in the direction of being a comprehensive insti-

tution, and pointed to approval of the many Ph. D. programs

over the last several years.

President Maxson stressed that UNLV has made a commitment

to undergraudate education. Tough decisions have to be

made which are sometimes unpopular with the faculty but are

totally necessary for the Campus. Mr. Klaich stated that

a focus on undergraduate education is good as is a system

to effectively evaluate faculty effectiveness. He stated

that he feels the Universities have not done a good job of

briefing the Board about what is being done in undergradu-

ate education, and acknowledged the commitment stated in

the planning documents addressing the issue.

Dr. Derby applauded UNLV's goals to strengthen undergradu-

ate education, efforts in faculty and student cultural

diversity and the plan to improve pay of part-time in-

structors while reducing the number of part-time instruc-

tors at the Campus.

UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA, RENO (UNR) - President Joseph Crowley

and Vice President Robert Hoover reviewed the UNR plan,

"Approaching the 21st Centurty: An Academic Master Plan

for the University of Nevada, Reno". President Crowley

stressed how important it is that the Campus community

have ownership in the academic master plan.

Vice President Hoover explained the UNR 21st Century

Committee, a committee of 40+ individuals who developed

the Campus academic master plan. The Committee had vision,

developed a plan for the next 5 years and allocation of

resources for the next 2 years. Vice President Hoover

reviewed the historical changes in the focus of higher

education in this country since WWII, resulting in a

totally changed country from 40 years ago. Instead of

the defense/cold war motivation of 40 years ago, research

Universities now must focus heavily on societal problems

such as environment, energy, families, health & wellness,

and information resources. Other forces affecting plan-

ning efforts include change in relative wealth; significant

changes in preparation of students; rapid changes in in-

formation technology; growing financial problems of the

states (as more and more federal responsibilities are off-

loaded on the states and non-educational programs are com-

peting for the same funds); greater focus on accountability;

and higher expectations of public higher education institu-


It was the intent of the plan to assess implications of

change - to examine programs for relevancy to the future,

and to add programs that will be necessary to future gen-

erations. Vice President Hoover reviewed the 6 fundamental

goals for the University during the coming 5 years (on file

in the Board of Regents' Office), and specific objectives

and strategies for achieving them.

Vice Chancellor Richardson reviewed strengths of the plan

and ways in which it could be improved. He pointed out

that the UNR academic plan uses an issue-oriented focus,

allowing the articulation of priorities and choices based

on the larger picture. 6 fundamental goals and 7 priori-

ties are identified for the next 5 years.

President Crowley suggested that a clear definition of

"comprehensive" for each institution be developed. Vice

Chancellor Richardson agreed and stated that he posed the

question of comprehensive Universities to stimulate Board

discussion about re-affirming the need in the State for

its two "comprehensive" Universities.

Vice President Unrue stressed the importance of having

plans approved for Northwest Association accreditation

visits. It was agreed that although some revision is

necessary, the plans will be presented at the next Academic

Affairs Committee meeting.


and Vice President William Bishop presented a draft of the

DRI Academic Master Plan. President Taranik explained that

DRI has had a continuous planning effort since 1987.

Vice President Bishop explained the DRI Academic Master

Plan addresses an institutional commitment to continued

activities that support the academic programs of the teach-

ing Campuses of the System and to expanding current activi-

ties in response to specific, merging opportunities.

The DRI strategic plans, updated every 18 months, has the

academic master plan as a component. The strategic plan

identifies 9 major goals, and 3 operational goals.

Vice President Bishop reviewed the many joint academic

programs currently in place in which DRI faculty teach

at the Universities, and the many joint programs that

are being developed for involvement at UCCSN intitutions.

Vice Chancellor Richardson reviewed strengths of the plan

and ways in which it could be improved. He observed that

DRI plans a significant increase in its academic involve-

ment with UCCSN Universities and Community Colleges over

the next few years. It will seek more state-of-the-art

laboratory capabilities which will support a growing number

of graduate students, and develop a strong global environ-

mental change reasearch-and-education program within the


The meeting reconvened at 8:40 A.M. Thursday, February 4, 1993,

with all participating present except Regent Joseph Foley.

2. Discussion on Strategic Directions

Vice Chancellor John Richardson reminded the group that in

December 1992, Campus and System Office staff were asked to

review the 9 strategic directions and objectives adopted

by the Board of Regents in January 1992, and report accom-

plishments over the last year. The reports were compiled

and summarized in the System Office and were included in

the packet of workshop information.

Ms. Karen Steinberg, Director of Institutional Research,

briefly reviewed the summary report. She reported that the

Board of Regents, the System Office and individual Campuses

were very successful in meeting the goals identified. All

9 strategic directions and most of the objectives were ad-

dressed over the past year. Ms. Steinberg reviewed the 9

strategic directions and pointed out the objectives in each

area that were not addressed.

Participants were placed in one of 4 small groups with an

appointed group leader and group facilitator. Each group

was asked to review the current strategic directions and

make recommendations for changes. The following recommenda-

tions for action were suggested:

(1) Review the 9 stratgic directions for continued


(2) Rank strategic directions in groups of "high",

"medium" and "low" to indicate some priority

for action over the next year.

(3) Review recommendations from the July Academic

Retreat for inclusion in the strategic directions

and objectives.

(4) Review objectives for continued relevance, impor-

tance in achieving the goals of the strategic

directions, and clarity of the objective.

The small groups reviewed strategic directions and objec-

tives, and drafted recommendations for change.

Vice Chancellor Richardson reported that the Academic

Affairs staff in the Chancellor's Office would compile

the results of the small group discussions and report to

the Board of Regents at a future meeting.

Dr. Derby, Chairman of the Academic Affairs Committee,

thanked the workshop participants, and gave special thanks

to Vice Chancellor Richardson and Ms. Steinberg for organi-

zation of the workshop activities.

The workshop adjourned at 12:30 P.M.

Mary Lou Moser

Secretary of the Board