03/24/1992

UCCSN Board of Regents' Meeting Minutes
March 24-25, 1992








03-24-1992

Pages 9-23



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

fees."



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,

'Yes'.



"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

attention.



"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 Chairman.



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

abstaining.



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

reconvene.



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

the audience.)



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

prerogative.



Mr. Pat Clary, an attorney, asked for time to speak to the

Board.



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-

ise.



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-

dent.



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

applause).



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

the Board.



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

for us."



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

investigation.



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

floor.



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

motion.



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

public.



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

seconded.



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

03-24-1992