March 13-14, 1970
BOARD OF REGENTS
UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA SYSTEM
March 13, 1970
The Board of Regents met on the above date in the Travis Lounge,
Jot Travis Student Union building, University of Nevada, Reno.
Members present: Fred M. Anderson, M. D.
Mr. A. C. Grant
Mr. Procter Hug, Jr.
Mr. Harold Jacobsen
Mrs. Molly Knudtsen
Louis Lombardi, M. D.
Mr. R. J. Ronzone
Mr. Albert Seeliger
Dr. Juanita White
Members absent: Mr. Thomas G. Bell
Mr. James H. Bilbray
Others present: Chancellor Neil D. Humphrey
President N. Edd Miller, UNR
President R. J. Zorn, UNLV
Acting Director Joseph Warburton, DRI
Chief Deputy Attorney General Daniel Walsh
Mr. James Hardesty, ASUN President
Mr. Hug called the meeting to order at 1:35 P.M., stating that it
was a regular meeting of the Board of Regents, called for this
date and time for the purpose of considering a disciplinary mat-
ter which had been referred to the Board of Regents by the
Referral Board. Mr. Hug noted the presence of Mr. Jesse
Sattwhite, UNR student; Professor Benjamin Hazard and Mr. Harold
Gloyd, advisors to Mr. Sattwhite.
Mr. Hug read the following statement:
"The Board of Regents has had referred to it by the Referral
Board, a disciplinary matter concerning Jesse Sattwhite. I recom-
mend to the Board of Regents, as its Chairman, the following
"The Board of Regents should recognize and approve the judicial
machinery established by the Constitution of the Associated
Students of the University of Nevada, Reno, for student
"Article V of the Student Constitution provides that the Referral
Board shall determine the jurisdiction of all cases involving
student disciplinary action, and shall refer each case to that
disciplinary body which is determined to have jurisdiction. The
Referral Board is composed of faculty and student members,
including the Chief Justice of the Student Judicial Council.
"The Referral Board has referred this student disciplinary action
to the Board of Regents. This is appropriate, not because the
Board of Regents should conduct the hearing, but because proce-
dural guidelines should be established.
"It is not appropriate for the Board of Regents to hear this
matter in the first instance because this would preclude any
appellate review within the University System. The only avenue
of appeal would then be a writ of certiorari to the Nevada
"It is therefore my recommendation that the Board of Regents
refer this matter to the President of the University of Nevada,
Reno, with instructions to designate an appropriate hearing
board to conduct a hearing of these charges within two (2) weeks.
The appropriate body to hear the charges may well be the Student
Judicial Council. It is my recommendation that we leave this to
the discretion of the President. However, we should note that in
situations such as this, where serious charges are involved
which, if proved, may well result in expulsion, it would be wise
to appoint, as the presiding officer, a person who has legal or
judicial experience. This is to assure that due process require-
ments are met in the conduct of the hearing. This is particular-
ly true where either one or both sides is represented by an
attorney. In this instance, it would apprear that the University
Attorney should present the case against the student.
"A suggested approach which the Board of Regents may recommend
to the President would be to designate the Student Judicial
Council as the hearing board and to designate a person with
legal or judicial experience to act as the presiding officer of
the hearing. A Court Reporter should be present in this case to
record the hearing.
"Under the Constitution of the Associated Students of the
University of Nevada, Reno, the Student Judicial Council may
render decisions of acquittal, warning, and probation, and may
recommend suspension and expulsion. The decision of the Student
Judicial Council may be appealed to the Dean of Student Affairs
and then to the President of the University. The final decision
on suspension and expulsion rests with the President.
"This same appellate procedure should be followed with regard to
any hearing board that the President designates to hear this
"In the event of a decision of suspension or expulsion, the
Board of Regents should serve as the final board of appeal
within the University System. It should not take testimony or
conduct a hearing, but only review the proceedings below, to
determine whether procedural due process has been followed."
Mr. Hug recommended the above statement be adopted by the Board
and requested discussion from those present. (A transcript of
the discussion is on file in the Chancellor's Office.)
Mr. Grant moved that the procedures as outlined by Mr. Hug be
approved. Motion seconded by Dr. White.
Dr. Anderson moved that the motion be amended to add the follow-
ing sentence to the next to the last paragraph in Mr. Hug's
statement: "Either side may appeal and the penalty may either
be reversed, reduced or increased." Dr. Anderson's motion to
amend failed for lack of second.
Mr. Grant moved to amend his motion to extend the time in which
a hearing should be called from two weeks to four weeks.
Amendment accepted by Dr. White. Motion as amended carried
The meeting adjourned at 2:14 P.M.
Mrs. Bonnie Smotony
Secretary to the Board