04/18/1991

UCCSN Board of Regents' Meeting Minutes
April 18-19, 1991








04-18-1991

Pages 1-8



                         BOARD OF REGENTS

                    UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA SYSTEM

                          April 18, 1991



The Board of Regents met on the above date in the Green Room,

Artemus Ham Concert Hall, University of Nevada, Las Vegas.



Members present:  Mrs. Dorothy S. Gallagher, Chairman

                  Mrs. Shelley Berkley

                  Dr. Jill Derby

                  Dr. James Eardley

                  Mr. Joseph M. Foley

                  Dr. Lonnie Hammargren

                  Mr. Daniel J. Klaich

                  Mrs. Carolyn M. Sparks

                  Mrs. June F. Whitley



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 Jim Taranik, DRI

                  Mr. Donald Klasic, General Counsel

                  Dr. Warren Fox, Vice Chancellor

                  Mr. Ron Sparks, Vice Chancellor

                  Mrs. Leslie Jacques, Acting Secretary



Also present were Faculty Senate Chairmen Alan Balboni (CCSN),

Richard Brown (UNR), Diane Dietrich (Unit) and Isabelle Emerson

(UNLV).



The meeting was teleconferenced to the System Administration

building in Reno with Regents Derby and Eardley present.



Chairman Gallagher called the special meeting to order at 1:45

P.M. stating the purpose of the meeting was to prioritize a list

of potential budget reductions received from the Nevada State

Legislature's Assembly Ways and Means Subcommittee on Higher

Education.



The Assembly Ways and Means Committee had requested each State

agency to reduce its budget by 10%.  The Board of Regents stated

its position that it opposed any reductions in the Executive

Budget relative to the University of Nevada System because such

reduction would severely damage the System's ability to deliver

quality education to Nevada's citizens.



In response to the Board of Regents' opposition to any reduc-

tions, the Assembly Ways and Means Subcommittee on Higher Edu-

cation submitted a list of potential budget reductions and re-

quested the Board of Regents to prioritize this list and explain

how they would affect the System.  The list was as follows:



    1.  Elimination of merit pay for Deans and above;



    2.  Delay hiring of new classified support positions in

        instruction until August 1;



    3.  Allocate total student fee increases "inside" the budget;



    4.  Reduce Grants-in-Aid by 25%;



    5.  Eliminate 15:1 developmental ratio in Community Col-

        leges;



    6.  Change in support service recommendation from executive

        recommended levels to 25% and 30%;



    7.  Increase classified support ratio to 5.5:1;



    8.  Retain 25.2:1 regular ratio at the urban Community

        Colleges; and



    9.  Reduce new faculty salaries in instruction to 90% or 95%

        of executive request.



Mr. Klaich stated that he had received a "draft" letter from

Chairman Gallagher and Vice Chairman Sparks, which was in re-

sponse to the Subcommittee's request to prioritize potential

budget reduction areas.  In response, Mr. Klaich stated that he

had reviewed the Subcommittee's list and noted that if each of

these items were reduced according to the Subcommittee's request,

it would require an approximate 3% reduction or a $5.9 million

reduction to the Executive Budget for the System.  Mr. Klaich

explained each item from the above list and stated the financial

impact each would carry.  He felt that each of these items is a

necessary part to the UNS budget and did not want to dispose of

any of the items.  Mr. Klaich emphasized that a 3% reduction

across the board for the institutions would not be equal and

that UNS should seek equitability for its institutions.



Mr. Foley stated that he believes the Governor and the Legisla-

tors are strong supporters of higher education, so, in that

regard, equality is the issue.  The Legislators have a tax

measure which should be presented to Nevada citizens for their

support.  Nevada citizens should be made aware that growth and

quality of education are dependent on their support of a tax

increase.  Mr. Foley requested Vice Chancellor Sparks to give a

status report on the UNS budget and the proposed tax measures.



Dr. Hammargren entered the meeting.



Vice Chancellor Sparks gave a legislative update.  He stated that

the Legislature has completed its UNS budget hearings, and they

are now hearing appeals.  The UNS capital improvement budgets

will be coming before the money committee within a few weeks.



He stated that current revenues are not meeting revenue projec-

tions, and projected revenues based on the Business Activity

Tax will not meet the projected needs.



Mrs. Berkley stated that it is important to maintain goodwill

with the Legislature by not antagonizing them, but UNS should

not give up its fight for its budget requests.  She questioned

if there was some way to comply in a manner which explains why

the cuts are so detrimental to UNS.



Vice Chancellor Sparks distributed material outlining the sug-

gested total budget reductions of the Assembly Ways and Means

Committee.  He explained each item in detail with discussion

following.



Mrs. Sparks suggested that rather than prioritizing the budget

reduction requests, the Board of Regents request each institu-

tion to reassign the reductions throughout the Campus.  Since

each Campus is different and has its own special needs, this

would be fair to each Campus and would make it equal throughout

the System.



President Gwaltney requested clarification in that if a 3% re-

duction were required would this be a 3% reduction for each

Campus and unit?  Mrs. Sparks stated she felt that UNS should

abide by the stated percentage cut for each Campus.



Mr. Klaich stated if that were so, it would leave UNS open to a

differential 3% reduction among the institutions and cause a

"whipsaw" effect.  He explained that if the reductions are dif-

ferential, then next legislative session UNS would approach the

Legislature to provide equitability between the institutions.  He

agreed with Mrs. Sparks' suggestion in regard to the institution

reassigning the reductions throughout its own Campus.



President Maxson stated he felt that it is the Board's decision

on whether to accept or oppose the budget reduction request.  He

stated that he would not be unhappy if the Board did not respond

at all to the Legislature and he felt that numerical facts need

to be presented in regard to Mr. Klaich's earlier remarks.  As

a casual observer, President Maxson suggested that each institu-

tion take the same reduction in the operating budget and make

recommendations to the Board of Regents outlining where the re-

ductions will be made.  Thereafter, the Board could approve the

reductions for each Campus.  He further suggested that if the

Board should respond to the Assembly Ways and Means Subcommit-

tee's request, the numerical figures should not be mentioned.

He felt that the "whipsaw" effect could either work to UNS'

advantage or disadvantage, and that it should not be a concern

at this time.



President Meacham supported President Maxson's suggestions and

added that he felt the Legislature would support the reductions

being made at the Campus level with Board of Regents' approval.



Mr. Klaich emphasized that the UNS budgets, in the past, have

been approved line by line by the Legislature, and that UNS

does not want to return to that practice and added that UNS

must be very careful what it asks for.



Mrs. Sparks stated that UNS is not asking Assembly Ways and Means

to "calculate" the UNS budget, but to balance the budget for the

State of Nevada and that it is the Board's responsibility to

create its own budget.



Chairman Gallagher welcomed Dr. Jim Richardson and commended

him for his efforts on behalf o the University of Nevada System

at the Nevada Legislature and added that he is a team player

and has been very effective.



Dr. Richardson gave an update on his efforts at the Legislature

indicating he had spoken with several of the Legislators about

UNS' concern over the budget and revenues.  He stated he is very

optimistic for UNS and does not think the Governor's recommended

budget will be reduced any further for UNS.  He suggested that

the Board reaffirm its autonomy in that the Board of Regents is

a very strong governing body in the State of Nevada; reaffirm

that the recommended reductions would adversely affect the faster

growing Campuses; and adopting a 3% reduction across the board

would adversely affect the slower growing Campuses.  There needs

to be a reduction that will affect each Campus equitably.  He

suggested that the Board of Regents prepare a statement that

reaffirms its right to make the budget reductions and submit a

sophisticated critique of the requested reduction items to be

presented to the Legislature.



Mrs. Berkley suggested that when responding to the Legislature,

a percentage number not be given; Presidents demonstrate where

the reductions would take place; and the enrollment caps be

removed because it would dramatically impact the southern insti-

tutions.



Mrs. Gallagher stated that the enrollment caps are the only way

to come up with a 10% difference.  Mrs. Berkley questioned if

the taxes are not raised, would it be necessary for enrollment

caps.  Mrs. Gallagher replied that it would bring UNS back to

the 10% reduction and that it will be necessary to raise the

taxes if higher education is going to maintain quality education

for its citizens.



Mr. Foley questioned what the impact would be for UNLV if the

9 requested reduction items were to go into effect, and Vice

President of Finance, Buster Neel, gave an explanation.



Dr. Eardley agreed that the Board of Regents should make a de-

cision whether or not to prioritize these recommendations.  He

stated that if there is a potential for reductions, the Board

of Regents should be held responsible.  Although the Legislature

has the money to allocate, the Regents have the responsibility

as elected officials to govern the institutions and maintain

fiduciary responsibility.  He stated that he felt it would have

a terrible effect if the reduction were made across the board

for each institution, and that capping enrollment would espe-

cially be harmful to UNLV at this time.



Dr. Derby stated that the Board of Regents should respond to the

Legislature reaffirming the Regents' autonomy and its accounta-

bility to the Legislature.  She stated that the reductions should

be equitable for all institutions.



President Crowley stated that UNS is partners with the Legisla-

ture, in that the Legislature appropriates the money.  They are

comprised of people who have differences of opinion, different

constituencies, and different priorities.  In the end, they

compromise and make the law.  He gave a historical point of view

on the relationship the University of Nevada System has had with

the Legislature.  In the past, UNS was not invited to partici-

pate in the closing of the budgets and has worked very hard over

the years to arrive at a point where it is an integral part of

the budget process and that it is now involved in the closing

of the UNS budgets.  UNS has had that opportunity for at least

the last three legislative sessions, since 1985.  They have

looked to UNS for help, and it has been given, and it is a

wonderful position to be in, and UNS must not do anything to

destroy the position which it has come to occupy in that respect.

The UNS position is accommodative, not confrontational, with

the Legislature.  President Crowley stated he believes that in

the end, UNS will not suffer any great cuts to its budgets, and

that the Legislature will come down on the side of education

because they will give in to the great needs of the State of

Nevada.



President Crowley made the following suggestions in regard to

the Board of Regents' response to the Assembly Ways and Means

Committee:



    1)  The need to be accommodating;



    2)  The need to indicate why the 9 requested reductions

        will not work for UNS; and



    3)  To request that the Legislature inform UNS of any

        additional reductions.



Mr. Klaich moved approval that the Board of Regents respond to

the Assembly Ways and Means request to prioritize budget reduc-

tions by:



    1)  Affirming the authority of the Board of Regents to budget

        for the University of Nevada System including that for

        any required budget cuts such budgeting to be in consul-

        tation with the Chancellor, the Presidents, and the

        Legislature.



    2)  Reaffirm the Board's prior position that any reduction

        from the Governor's recommendation cannot be tolerated;



    3)  Request that, if any budget reduction is required by the

        Committee, the Committee advise the Board of the exact

        size or percentage of the cut; the Board then to assume

        its responsibility to apportion the reduction equitably

        among the System institutions or units; each institution

        or unit will incorporate the reduction within its re-

        spective budget and the budget reduction as so imple-

        mented will be approved by the Board and reported to the

        Legislature;



    4)  Provide a critique in sufficient detail of the list of

        potential areas of budget reduction identified by the

        Assembly Ways and Means Subcommittee, which shows the

        severe negative impact of such cuts upon the System;

        and



    5)  Thank the Committee and the Chairman for the positive

        manner in which our budgets have been heard to this point

        and their support of higher education.



Mrs. Berkley seconded.



Chairman Gallagher requested that the above motion be incorpo-

rated into a letter, which will be sent to the Assembly Ways

and Means Chairman Matt Callister.  She stated that a "draft"

of the letter will be circulated to the Regents and Presidents

prior to it being sent, for any additions, deletions or cor-

rections.



President Crowley stated that he drafted a letter which captures

all of the points made in the above motion.  Dr. Eardley re-

quested President Crowley to read the last paragraph of his

letter:



    "If reductions in the Executive Budget are required, we

    request that they be applied equitably among the major

    divisions of the System, that is the 7 institutions and

    System Administration, and in such a way that they would

    not disproportionately affect any institution(s).  The

    Board after appropriate consultation would wish to imple-

    ment any legislatively mandated reductions so as to mini-

    mize negative impacts on particular institutions and

    assure comparable, consistent, and fair treatment through-

    out the System as utilized in developing our budget re-

    quest."



Mr. Klaich stated that if the Legislature requests the reduc-

tions, the Board of Regents may have to hold a special meeting

to request the Presidents to submit the reductions, which the

Board of Regents will consider.



President Maxson requested that the word "equitable" in the above

motion under 3) be changed to the word "equal".  Regents Berkley

and Sparks agreed with the language change.  President Crowley

felt that the Board was reacting prematurely, in that it may not

even come to a reduction.  He agreed with the original language.

Mrs. Sparks stated that if any other word but "equal" is used,

it would leave UNS open to legislative interpretation.  Chairman

Gallagher disagreed and stated that if a reduction were to be

mandated, the Board of Regents would discuss the reduction and

resolve the issue.  Dr. Derby felt that the word "equitable"

was a more flexible word to use at this point in the Board's

deliberations, and the implications must be examined prior to

changing the wording to "equal".



President Crowley stated that this discussion is destructive

and it is difficult for both the University Presidents to agree

because they come from their own points of view.  The uniqueness

among the institutions was discussed, and President Crowley

stated that when "equality" was discussed, in that every insti-

tution will be reduced equally by a certain percentage, that does

not recognize uniqueness among the institutions.  The Board of

Regents should be concerned about each institution's uniqueness

and the disproportion of the impact on those budgets at UNR as

they are at UNLV or the Community Colleges, in order to maintain

their uniqueness.  He reminded the Board that UNR has $25 million

worth of budgets that are outside the basic instructional budget,

which none of the other institutions have, and that is what makes

UNR unique along with being a land grant institution.  The School

of Medicine, the Cooperative Extension Service and the Agricul-

ture Experiment Station are statewide programs that are housed

at UNR and include their own budgets.  These budgets have not

participated in the Governor's recommendation for the increase

which is driven by growth considerations and formulas.  However,

it is being discussed that these budgets be considered for de-

crease.  If the Board instructs the Campus to take the budgets

for basic instruction and apply an equal reduction, then he

stated he would agree, but questioned how he should take a 3%

reduction to the School of Medicine budget and tell them that

there will be no merit money and that they can't participate

like everyone else can in the inflationary increases so they

can operate their programs.  There are 257 faculty positions

and 158 classified positions throughout UNR, and President

Crowley stated that he could not do them justice if they have

to be equally treated.



Dr. Hammargren called for the question.



Mrs. Sparks moved approval to amend the motion by replacing the

word "equitable" with "equal" under point 3) of the above motion.

Mrs. Whitley seconded.



Motion failed upon roll call vote.



    Ayes:  Regents Berkley, Foley, Sparks, Whitley

    Nays:  Regents Derby, Eardley, Hammargren, Klaich, Gallagher



Motion carried on the original motion upon roll call vote.



    Ayes:  Regents Berkley, Derby, Eardley, Foley, Hammargren,

           Klaich, Gallagher

    Nays:  Regents Sparks, Whitley



Chairman Gallagher requested that a "draft" letter be written in

response to the Assembly Ways and Means' request, and that the

letter be facsimilied to the Regents and Presidents for approval.



Mr. Foley requested that the person(s) who prepare the letter be

indicated on the facsimile.



The meeting adjourned at 3:40 P.M.



                             Leslie C. Jacques

                             Acting Secretary

                                                       04-18-1991