April 18-19, 1991
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
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
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-
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
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
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
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-
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
President Crowley made the following suggestions in regard to
the Board of Regents' response to the Assembly Ways and Means
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
Mr. Klaich moved approval that the Board of Regents respond to
the Assembly Ways and Means request to prioritize budget reduc-
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
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
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;
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-
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
"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-
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,
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