March 24-25, 1992
BOARD OF REGENTS
UNIVERSITY AND COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM OF NEVADA
March 24, 1992
The Board of Regents met on the above date in a special meeting
at the Grand Hall, Richard Tam Alumni Center, University of
Nevada, Las Vegas.
Members present: Mrs. Carolyn M. Sparks, Chairman
Mrs. Shelley Berkley
Dr. Jill Derby
Dr. James Eardley
Mr. Joseph M. Foley
Mrs. Dorothy S. Gallagher
Dr. Lonnie Hammargren
Mr. Daniel J. Klaich
Mrs. June F. Whitley
Others present: Chancellor Mark H Dawson
President Robert Maxson
Dr. Donald Klasic, General Counsel
Ms. Mary Lou Moser, Secretary
Chairman Sparks stated the purpose of the meeting was to hold a
closed personnel session in compliance with NRS 241.030.
Mr. Foley objected to the agenda in its entirety. However, he
stated he was just handed a Summons and Complaint from the
District Court in Clark County, Nevada wherein the Nevada Press
Association vs. the University and Community College System of
Nevada alleges violation of the Open Meeting Law for a closed
personnel session conducted by the Board on January 9, 1992.
At that meeting it is alleged the Board was deliberating on the
competency of Dr. Hammargren. All the Regents are named in the
suit. Mr. Foley was not present at the meeting. He stated that
when the meeting was called he did not feel the meeting should
have been called and he refused to attend. He requested General
Counsel Donald Klasic to inform the Nevada State Press Associa-
tion of his non-involvement, and, further, request a voluntary
dismissal from the suit.
Mr. Foley stated another matter is contained in the suit wherein
the Nevada State Press Association, the plaintiff, has filed the
suit about a matter on the agenda of the meeting. He questioned
the procedure of the Legal Department in the matter of reviewing
items to assure it is business that can be legally conducted.
Mr. Foley stated:
"I have objected to the agenda for this meeting. It is
certainly not my intention to attack anyone without warning.
Carolyn (Sparks), I told you last week that this agenda is
ill conceived and I probably would not take part in it. I
have had feedback from several sources which tells me that
my message to you was communicated to others.
"I am now stating for all concerned that the execution of
this agenda, in my opinion, jeopardizes all of our positions
as Regents and will expose us to claims for damages which
will probably not be recovered by indemnity, or immunity,
provided by statute, or any insurance.
"Mary Lou (Moser), I would ask that my remarks be taped and
I would like to be provided with a copy of this tape at my
expense as soon as possible. Do we have a tape facility?
(Ms. Moser answered in the affirmative.) Thank you.
"(Jerry) Tarkanian wants an investigation. He wants a hand
in this game. There is nothing stopping him from putting up
his chips and getting his own investigators. There are
plenty of law enforcement people, and former prosecutors out
there to fully accommodate him. All he has to do is pay the
Mrs. Berkly interrupted Mr. Foley stating that she understood
the meeting was to hold a closed personnel session with Mr. Brad
Booke, Assistant General Counsel. Mr. Foley stated that he was
objecting to the agenda, and stated he would appreciate it if he
could be allowed to complete his statement. Chairman Sparks
stated the Board would go into personnel session as soon as the
open portion of the meeting was completed.
Mr. Foley continued:
"(Jerry) Tarkanian wants President Maxson's hide because the
President would have fired him had he not resigned last May.
Who needs an investigation to further establish that fact?
Who quarrels with that fact?
"(Jerry) Tarkanian claims that the Chief Law Enforcement
Officer of this State, who is duly elected by the people as
Attorney General cannot be trusted with the investigation
of this matter because she was a member of the Board of
Regents that hired President Maxson. It just so happens
that the Attorney General of the State of Nevada is the
Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the State of Nevada -- for
the Governor, for the Legislature, for the Supreme Court
and the lower courts, and, of course, of the Regents.
"I can't believe the Regents are foolish enough to depart
from this system for a do-it-yourself due process system
proposed by two of our Regents. We can't do this for
Tarkanian or for anyone else, as a matter of fact. Tarkan-
ian wants the Regents to expend State funds for this in-
vestigation of the circumstances for his resignation.
"Think about this situation. Does the Board have any
authority in its governing documents to order such an in-
vestigation? My answer is, 'No'.
"Can the Regents justify the expenditure of State funds for
such an investigation? My answer is, 'No'.
"Will the Regents have any immunity for improper invasion
of personal rights by the Regents appointed to investigate
it? My answer is emphatically, 'No'.
"Can the Board members be held personally liable for damages
for such investigation? My answer to that is emphatically,
"Let's get away from this nonsense. We have important
functions. We should either perform them or resign from
the Board. The crisis in education today begs for our
"That's the investigation issue. Now, what about this so-
called personnel session for Brad Booke? My objection, and
I object strenuously, is that the Board has authority over
the competency of the Presidents and the Chancellor because
the Board hired these people. I'm talking about our govern-
ing documents again. Those documents give the Board no au-
thority over employees of either the President or the Chan-
cellor. Wherever you try to fit Brad Booke into the scheme
of things, it does not work out to confer jurisdiction, or
authority, on this Board to legally conduct a closed hearing
about the competency of Brad Booke. Therefore, Madam Chair-
man, I object to the execution of any part of the agenda as
set forth in the notice."
Chairman Sparks asked General Counsel Klasic if there was any
part of Mr. Foley's statement which should be answered before
going into personnel session. General Counsel Klasic stated he
would answer any questions from the Board. Chairman Sparks
interjected that the agenda had been reviewed by General Counsel
before it was published. Mr. Foley asked that General Counsel
speak to the matter. General Counsel Klasic stated he had
studied the agenda and in his opinion it was in accordance with
Nevada law and Board of Regents policy. He added that normally,
the situation is that the Board does not, as a matter of prac-
tice, "dip down" into persons lower than the President or the
Chancellor when it conducts personnel sessions. He related that
the first time he could remember the Board doing so, during his
tenure on the Board, was last June when a personnel session was
held on Mr. Tarkanian. General Counsel Klasic stated that the
Board of Regents' Bylaws specifically provides that the Presi-
dents and the Chancellor are the Chief Administrative Officers of
their particular divisions, and there is also another provision
in the Board of Regents' codification policy which indicates that
the purpose of the Board is to assess basic policy standards and
to allow the detailed administration to the Presidents and the
Chancellor. So, normally what the Board has done in the past, is
that whenver it had a particular problem with a particular em-
ployee who reports to a President or to a Chancellor, it did not
call for that employee into a session, it called the Chancellor
or the President into a session. By the same token, of course,
by the Constitution, the Board has complete control of the
University. So, the question was whether it wished at this time
to waive its past procedures and practice.
Mr. Klaich moved that the Board enter into a personnel session
for the purpose of discussion of the character, alleged mis-
conduct, professional competence, or physical or mental health
of a person or persons. Mrs. Berkley seconded. Motion carried.
Mr. Foley voted no.
Chairman Sparks stated the Board would recess for the personnel
session. She added that she understood Coach Jerry Tarkanian
was present as a voluntary witness in this matter and wished to
address the Board during the personnel session. She stated she
had been informed he wanted to be here and a letter had been
sent to his attorney informing Mr. Tarkanian could appear if he
so desired. Mr. Foley asked whether the Board had voted to have
him appear, with Chairman Sparks stating it had not. Mrs.
Whitley and Mrs. Berkley stated they had made such request of
The Board recessed for closed personnel session and moved to the
Conference Room where the question came up of whether having
Danny and Jerry Tarkanian in the room would be a breach of
attorney-client privilege. (Regent Foley was not present at
the personnel session.) The door to the room was opened, a
non-University person standing in the hall was invited in, and
the following action was taken:
Mr. Klaich stated because a question had arisen whether the
Board's attorney-client privilege would be violated with
respect to those in attendance at the meeting, that he
moved that the Board not waive its privilege and, further
that Mr. Tarkanian and his attorney wait outside of the
meeting while the Board had a discussion with its Counsel.
Mrs. Gallagher seconded. The motion passed 5 to 3, with
Regents Hammargren and Berkley voting "no", and Dr. Derby
The Board then moved back into the closed personnel session and
reconvened in open session at 3:10 P.M. with all Regents present.
Chairman Sparks had explained that the time certain for Item 2 on
the agenda was 2:00 P.M., which was the earliest the Board would
2. Disapproved the Request for an Independent Investigation
The Board disapproved the request for an independent inves-
tigation to review the controversy involving sports admin-
istration at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
Chairman Sparks stated the discussion would be among the
Regents, but she would accept comments from the public.
However, because the Board had already had two public ses-
sions on a similar matter, she stated the Board would not
repeat speakers; that anyone who had spoken at the last
two meetings would be asked to allow new speakers to come
forward. She added that Board members could relinquish
the floor to an outside person, that if a person had some-
thing pertinent to add to the discussion, she would enter-
tain that person. She cautioned that the Board would not
have a repeat of the same conversations that had gone on at
the last two meetings because of the time constraints.
However, if different information is available, Chairman
Sparks stated the Board would hear that. (Murmuring from
In response to a question, General Counsel Klasic stated
that under the Open Meeting Law the Board did not have to
allow anyone to speak during the portion of the meeting
dealing with Item number two. The Nevada Open Meeting Law
provides that a portion of the agenda must be devoted to
public input, which is Item number three. However, if
the Board wishes to allow a person to speak, that is its
Mr. Pat Clary, an attorney, asked for time to speak to the
Dr. Eardley moved to consider Item number two which is Dr.
Hammargren's request that the Board call for an independent
investigation to review all the controversy involving sports
administration "at any level from the Regents down to the
last Assistant Trainer within the University of Nevada, Las
Vegas." Mrs. Gallagher seconded.
Dr. Hammargren distributed, then read a letter to the Board
dated March 12, 1992, which had been attached to the pub-
lished agenda, filed with the permanent minutes. The letter
also called for consideration of alternate proposals should
they be submitted. It also suggested that the Board ask
the Legislative Commission to conduct the investigation.
He stated Dr. Derby had drafted a proposal calling for an
independent inquiry and mediation and he felt mediation
would be a way to solve the issue, but so far he did not
feel there had been any mediation, in fact, it was his
personal feeling that there had been a cover up in hopes
it would all go away, but the matter was still here.
Chairman Sparks called on each Regent to express an opinion.
Dr. Derby distributed a memo addressed to Chairman Sparks,
dated March 23, 1992, filed with the permanent minutes.
She stated she had put forth two proposals, one involving
mediation and one involving an independent inquiry that
is different in nature, in that it does not involve the
Legislature. She added that she had been apprehensive
about legislative involvement, feeling the Regents could
take care of their own inquiry and could arrange for an
inquiry. Dr. Derby stated she felt a blue ribbon panel
could be chosen for that purpose.
Dr. Derby stated she felt the question was that of what was
the right thing to do to put this very divisive and damag-
ing controversy behind, so that the University and the
System could get back to the task of educating Nevadans.
She related that she feels the disagreement on the Board
is with how to do that, but that all are looking at the
well-being of UNLV. She stated she believed that doing
nothing sends a more damaging message than to take action;
that the cloud of unanswered questions remaining are more
damaging when left unanswered. Dr. Derby stated that she
fully supports the Administration of UNLV, but that she
also sees the need for an appropriate response to the public
concern, and that she believes that appropriate response is
an independent inquiry.
Dr. Derby continued that she wanted everyone to understand
that her stand in the balance between athletics and aca-
demics is with academics. She stated that there can be
absolutely no question about the priority of higher edu-
cation in her view; academics is what "we're about first
and foremost". She also stated that there must be absolute
institutional control over all programs for an institution
to be functional; athletics is no exception to that.
She stated that she felt it was important to put the
controversy to rest and she felt the best way to do that
was for calling for an independent inquiry. She added that
she was only responding to what she felt was best for UNLV
in the long- and short-term. She stated the value of an
independent inquiry would be the response directly to the
heart of the public concern in this matter -- questions of
institutional and/or programmatic impropriety in perform-
ance, and underscores the important democratic principal
that the public has the right to know. She felt that
questions left unanswered about institutional integrity
cannot be ignored. Dr. Derby stated she believes that the
core issue at stake cuts across the many faces this contro-
versy has assumed and goes to the very heart and character
of the University as an environment for the free exchange
and disucssion of all ideas. She added that leaving ques-
tions unanswered could leave a legacy of doubt attached
to the institution that could limit its aspirational prom-
Mrs. Berkley echoed Dr. Derby's words and supported her
statement. She reminded the Board that UNLV is her alma
mater, that she has taken an oath to preserve the integrity
of the University, and to represent the concerns of her
constituents. She stated she was not the voice of any one
narrow interest group; that her vote should not be taken to
reflect negatively on President Maxson or his staff. She
stated that her constituents want answers and she would
vote in concert with her constituents. She added that she
respects the opinions and motives of fellow Board members
and hoped they would respect hers.
Mr. Klaich stated he felt the issue was how to get about
the business of doing what UNLV is all about. In that, he
stated he agreed with Regents Derby, Berkley and Hammargren.
He stated he did not agree with the call for an independent
investigation and he would not support the motion. He
stated that as he recounted the facts of the matter, Coach
Tarkanian voluntarily tendered his resignation, which was
accepted by the University at a time when the Coach was
represented by counsel of his own choosing. He related
that in his opinion the tendering and acceptance of that
resignation closed the book on matters that occurred prior
to that resignation. He continued that subsequent to the
resignation there has been a tremendous hue and cry in the
media, and there have been calls of cover up and conspiracy.
He has followed these and tried to educate himself as to the
facts. He stated that he has tried to represent this System
and this institution as best he can. However, subsequent to
the resignation of Coach Tarkanian there have been two in-
cidents wherein the Administration, or staff associated with
UCCSN, have been alleged to taking part in action to smirch
Coach Tarkanian. Those two incidents are 1) videotaping of
what was supposed to be a conditioning class, but which
showed basketball practice; and, 2) supposedly leaking in-
formation regarding point shaving allegations. He related
that the individuals related with the videotaping incident
admitted it had occurred, acknowledged their responsibility
and apologized to the individuals involved.
Mrs. Tim Grgurich shouted that her husband had not accepted
the apology for the videotaping, and certain audience mem-
bers shouted comments. The meeting was disturbed by an
outburst from the audience. Chairman Sparks admonished
the crowd that the meeting would be conducted in an orderly,
polite way, or it would be adjourned.
Mr. Klaich continued that with respect to alleged leaking of
point shaving, there has not been one credible witness or
shred of evidence that has been brought forth indicating
that anyone in the Administration was linked to that inci-
Mr. Klaich stated that, in his opinion, this institution
must go forward with the business of education. If there
is problem solving to be done, and if Coach Tarkanian feels
that he has been wronged, then he has the responsibility to
prove that in court; the courts are set up under our system
of government for redressing wrongs between one individual
and another. He added that this Board is not set up to
conduct independent investigations of this sort; it does
not have subpoena power; it does not have the ability to
do investigations; and the members were not elected to do
it. Mr. Klaich stated, in his opinion, it was time for
the members of this Board to stand up and say to this edu-
cational community, "We have heard enough. We are going
forward with the business of UNLV." He stated he would not
vote for an independent inquiry, or any more sessions on
this matter. However, if the Coach wished to bring matters
to the Board, he has subpoena power in Council and he has
the ability to sue the Board if he feels it has wronged him.
Loud comments and boos came from the audience. Chairman
Sparks again admonished the audience.
Mr. Foley stated he had expressed himself on this matter
during the morning open session. He added that he wanted
to thank Mr. Klaich for his wise appraisal and wise counsel
on this matter. Mr. Foley related that he joined Mr. Klaich
in saying the book is closed, and "Tark, go to court".
Mrs. Gallagher stated that in all the years she has been a
Regent she could not remember the Board spending as much
time on anything as has been spent on the UNLV men's basket-
ball program. She added that the Board had heard from
everyone; that she believed the Board members have been
very open-minded about the situation; they had investigated
internally; and that she is satisfied with the answers
which have been given. Mrs. Gallagher stated that she,
too, felt it was not the prerogative, nor the duty of this
Board to turn into an investigative body; that it was not
what the Board was elected to do. she related that she
felt the proper redress for any wrongs which may have been
comitted, or have thought to be committed, should be ad-
dressed in a court of law where witnesses can be subpoenaed;
witnesses can testify under oath; and due process would
certainly be part of the procedure and possibly the truth,
as everybody has talked about, would come out. She stated
she would not be voting for an independent investigation.
Dr. Eardley stated he has, for many years, been a great
sports fan of the Runnin' Rebels and related that their
popularity was great in the northern part of the State.
He stated that a number of people had called him from the
Las Vegas area about the situation on the UNLV Campus. He
stated that he felt that due process meant that the Regents
must listen to everyone and every side as much as they
possibly could and then make a decision. He added that as
each day went by and he heard from people, he changed his
opinion on certain things because of the number of people
involved and what was happening to the Las Vegas community.
Dr. Eardley wondered how long this matter could go on? How
long can it be damaging to the University? Could it be cut
short so that it would be best for all, including the Coach,
the President, the University and the community? He stated
he had never received so many "clips" (newspaper articles),
so many faxes, and so many letters on a matter that had
been generated by the interests of the community.
Again, much applause and crowd murmuring.
Dr. Eardley continued that the interest of the community was
important to him, but the interest of the University was
first, and the reason for that is, that he did not feel the
University could continually be attacked by ANY side, and
that the matter should be shut down as soon as it can. He
stated he felt that any due process should be within the
organization, and that he "flat out" did not like the idea
of the Legislative Commission doing an investigation. He
added that he felt there should be an independent investi-
gation ... (loud applause) ... that deals through the
Attorney General's Office.
There were loud verbal objections with that statement.
Dr. Eardley continued that the Board did not have the au-
thority to do many of the things that people wanted it to
do, but that if there must be subpoena power involved, the
matter may have to go back to the Attorney General's Office
or into a court. He stated that, "we cannot, as a Board,
continue on with this and do much about it." He added that
he would be in favor of just ending the matter.
There were loud applause and loud verbal comments.
Mrs. Whitley referred to the personnel session held earlier
that day that satisfied many of her personal questions.
She stated she was undecided on asking for an independent
investigation. However, she added that many of the people
she represents are calling for an investigation (loud
applause) ... therefore, she felt compelled to ask for an
independent investigation (more loud, long applause).
Dr. Derby asked to respond to points raised by fellow Re-
gents, and stated that it was never her thought that this
Board could do the investigation themselves, that the Board
was not a body elected to do that, or even capable of do-
ing this. She added that her proposal calls for the ap-
pointing of an independent, blue-ribbon panel to do the
investigation ... (more applause). Dr. Derby stated it
was possible for such a group to put people under oath in
taking testimony, but not possible for that group to have
subpoena power. She stated she felt very strongly that
the matter must be "put away" from the Board ... (more
General Counsel Klasic stated that any group put together
by the Board would not have subpoena powers. It would not
have the authority to administer oaths, although it is
possible that if a court reporter is present, who is a
notary, he/she could offer to administer the oath, but there
is nothing to compel the witness to take the oath.
Chairman Sparks stated that with the testimony taken this
date, the matter must be brought to a conclusion; that the
majority opinion is that this Board is not empowered to
subpoena or take oaths; that it is not the job of the
Board; that the Board is elected by the people to administer
the policy and the budget of the University and Community
College System of the State of Nevada. She added that the
Regents are not investigators, now lawyers, not judges,
that the job of the Board is not to determine if the in-
ternal problem on a specific Campus is right or wrong.
That is not the job of the Board of Regents. She stated
that at this point, her personal thoughts were that the
only way this could be solved fairly to all, to grant due
process to all involved, and if an investigation was to be
suggested, she would recommend that the Attorney General
approach the Grand Jury and have that body investigate if
necessary or this matter be turned over and handled by a
court of law. She added that this Board could not deal
with matters regarding law; that the courts are the only
place this matter could be properly handled.
Chairman Sparks stated the motion on the floor was for the
introduction of Item 2 to the Agenda.
Mr. Foley moved that this matter be closed and this meet-
ing be adjourned.
Loud comment from the audience objecting to the motion.
Mrs. Berkley stated that if she thought that if by not
speaking about this and vowing that this has come to an
end would make it go away, she would be a very strong
advocate for that position. She stated that she did not
believe that the Board wishing it away would make it so.
Loud applause and audience comments.
Mrs. Berkley continued that she had received a phone call
from Assembly Mc Gaughey, who had been her successor in
the Legislature. She stated he advised her, and asked that
she tell the Regents, that in fact if they did not do some-
thing affirmative and do not create some sort of inquiry to
look into this matter, that the Legislature will do that for
Loud applause and comments.
Mrs. Berkley stated that she was an elected official of the
State of Nevada; that she would not abdicate her authority
to another body and another branch of government; she felt
it was a difficult decision and one she did not make hap-
pily or comfortably but is one she will make. She added
that if "we do not clean our own house, somebody will do it
Loud applause and comments.
Chairman Sparks stated that was exactly what this Board has
in mind; that it does not intend to look the other way and
hope this matter goes away. (Loud interruptions from the
audience.) She continued that the only way this issue will
be solved is in the courts; that the Board is not capable
of functioning as a court; that the Board would conduct its
duty by seeing that this matter is taken to the proper
authorities to be dealt with legally, officially, granting
due process to every person concerned, including the Board
of Regents. She stated that the Board could not do other-
wise and by recommending that this be sent on to the proper
authorities is the only way it could specifically handle
its duties and its obligations to this System.
Some applause, loud objections. A member of the audience
questioned Dr. Hammargren, whether this would satisfy him,
or would he like something different.
Dr. Hammargren stated that the Board must get on with its
business, that there would be time for public comment at
the end of the meeting.
Dr. Hammargren moved for an independent inquiry.
Loud applause, comments.
Dr. Derby seconded.
General Counsel Klasic reminded the Board there was a motion
on the floor. There was general discussion among the Board
members as to the wording of the first motion. (There was
a great deal of noise from the audience, and it was diffi-
cult for the Board members to hear their own discussions.)
The Secretary reread the motion, which was to consider Item
2 in which Dr. Hammargren had called for an independent
Again, loud applause and comment from the audience.
Dr. Eardley withdrew the original motion. Mrs. Gallagher
withdrew the second.
Chairman Sparks declared there was now one motion on the
Dr. Derby requested Dr. Hammargren to amend the motion to
make it an independent inquiry and for the Board to appoint
a blue-ribbon panel from respected members of the State,
showing a regional balance, to conduct the inquiry.
Dr. Hammargren declined, asking for a vote on a simple
independent inquiry. If passed, the details could be worked
out. Dr. Derby explained that she felt the motion was too
broad, and she preferred the motion to contain the details.
Dr. Hammargren explained that the first step should be to
determine whether the Board wanted an independent inquiry,
with details to be worked out in public.
Loud, long applause, verbal assent from the audience.
Because of the noise from the audience, Chairman Sparks
asked Dr. Hammargren to repeat the motion. Dr. Hammargren
repeated that he moved the Board of Regents request an in-
dependent inquiry. Dr. Derby stated she would agree to the
second for purposes of discussion.
Mr. Klaich spoke to Dr. Hammargren stating he respectfully
suggested that the motion "is a fraud". He added that if
Dr. Hammargren had a motion to put before the Board in which
he had any confidence, he suggested that he (Dr. Hammargen)
spell out the motion. He added that the Board has raised
questions about who will conduct an inquiry, what kind of
powers that inquiry will have, can it be done by this
Board, or should it be done by the Legislative Commission?
He stated that by doing the motions piece by piece, it put
the Board in the position of not being able to vote on
anything substantive. He stated that , "should we have an
inquiry" is not responsive to any of the questions posed
by the Board and urged that the Board vote against the
Mrs. Berkley stated that Dr. Hammargren knew where she
stands on the matter, but that she was uncomfortable with
an open-ended motion, asking him to reconsider Dr. Derby's
request for making the motion a little more narrow. She
stated she felt it was ultimately more important to do the
investigation as rapidly as possible, reach a conclusion
which all could live with, and is satisfactory to the
Mrs. Whitley asked to amend the motion by adding that it
be completed within 60-days.
A great deal of simultaneous conversation among the Board
and simultaneous loud comments from the audience ensued.
General Counsel Klasic commented that if there was a second
to Mrs. Whitley's amendment, the Board could proceed.
Mrs. Berkley seconded.
Chairman Sparks called for a vote on the amendment which
was for a 60-day time limit to the investigation. The vote
could not be determined by voice vote.
Amendment failed on roll call vote:
Aye: Regents Berkley, Derby, Hammargren, Whitley
Nay: Regents Eardley, Foley, Gallagher, Klaich, Sparks
Dr. Derby moved to amend Dr. Hammargren's motion to specify
that the independent inquiry called for in the motion be
the particular independent inquiry, Proposal 1, calling
for an independent blue-ribbon panel of impartial and re-
spected Nevadans be appointed by the Board. Mrs. Berkley
Mr. Klaich stated for the record that he had discussed this
with Dr. Derby, that this inquiry has no subpoena power,
no power to issue oaths, and felt that it would be an in-
dependent inquiry which would lead to no success and would
not put the matter to rest at all. Dr. Derby stated that
it would have the capacity to issue oaths, but it could not
require people to take the oath, but could put people vol-
untarily under oath.
Motion failed on roll call vote:
Aye: Regents Berkley, Derby, Hammargren, Whitley
Nay: Regents Eardley, Foley, Gallagher, Klaich, Sparks
Chairman Sparks called for the vote on the original motion,
which was for an independent inquiry.
Original motion failed on roll call vote:
Aye: Regents Berkley, Derby, Hammargen, Whitley
Nay: Regents Eardley, Foley, Gallagher, Klaich, Sparks
3. New Business
Pandemonium broke out among the audience. Chairman Sparks
tried to gavel the meeting to order, called for the audience
to be quiet so that everyone could speak.
Mr. Conan Fine began speaking stating that he had begun
working on the "Save Tark" campaign, but felt the issue of
the integrity of the Regents has become more important. He
stated it was impossible that the Regents could deny what
the public wants.
Chairman Sparks explained that the Board wanted the matter
to go where everyone will have "his or her day in court".
She added that the Board could not properly do that, and
that a court of law is where the matter should be handled.
The audience noise did not diminish.
Mrs. Berkley suggested that Dr. Hammargren had another
motion to bring before the Board. Chairman Sparks con-
tinued to gavel for quiet.
Mr. Patrick Clary approached the podium, stating that he was
an attorney, and felt the matter should not be solved in the
courts, that it was a political issue, and the Board was a
political body that should decide. Chairman Sparks stated
the Board had made a decision: not to have an investiga-
tion. Mr. Clary stated he had come to the meeting to ask
the Board to conduct an investigation and had not had an
opportunity to say it to the Board. He referred to a
letter written to the Board by General Counsel Klasic,
and was speaking on behalf of himself as Chairman of the
Committee to Save Tarkanian, Jackie Mc Call and Reverend
Marion Bennett as Co-Chairmen of the Citizens for Academic
Freedom at UNLV, and urged the removal of General Counsel
Klasic and Assistant General Counsel Bradley Booke, "both
of whose conduct has demonstrated extreme bias and unfair-
ness. Of the multitude of lawyers available to you, you
are entitled to a much higher standard of legal counsel in
carrying out your duties of office in your deliberations."
He questioned how General Counsel Klasic, in his letter,
could call Mrs. Mc Call, Reverend Bennett and himself, a
"handful of shameless malcontents who have engaged in a
vicious smear campaign". He continued with a statement that
they and their followers had been "up front" in their sup-
port of Mr. Tarkanian, and cited the Administration has be-
ing in the wrong, and asked if Mr. Tarkanian was not to be
the basketball Coach at UNLV, that the Board tell them why.
(Loud shouting from the audience.) He stated that matter
would not go away because of the Board action today.
Chairman Sparks stated that if Mr. Tarkanian wished to take
action he was free to do so.
Pandemonium broke out among the audience, surging forward
to the Board table. Because the audience would not respond
to the gavel, the meeting adjourned at 4:10 P.M.
Mary Lou Moser
Secretary of the Board