05/01/1909

 


VIDEO TELECONFERENCE 
SPECIAL MEETING 
BOARD OF REGENTS 
UNIVERSITY AND COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM OF NEVADA 
Conference Room, System Administration 
5550 W. Flamingo Road, Suite C-1, Las Vegas 
2601 Enterprise Road, Reno 
December 17, 1999 
  
  
 


Members Present:   Dr. Jill Derby, Chair 
     Mr. Mark Alden 
     Mrs. Thalia Dondero 
      Mrs. Dorothy S. Gallagher 
     Mr. Douglas Roman Hill 
     Dr. Tom Kirkpatrick 
      Mr. David Phillips 
     Mr. Howard Rosenberg 
     Mr. Doug Seastrand 
      Mr. Steve Sisolak 
     Mr. Tom Wiesner 
  
  
Others Present:   Dr. Tom Anderes, Interim Chancellor 
      Dr Jane Nichols, Vice Chancellor Academic Affairs 
      Mr. Tom Ray, General Counsel 
      President Ron Remington, GBC 
      President Joe Crowley, UNR 
     Ms. Suzanne Ernst, Secretary of the Board 
     Mr. John Case, DRI 
  
  
Chair Derby called the meeting to order at 11:00 am with all members present except Regent Sisolak. 
  
  
1.   Report, Presidential Search Committee Henderson State College - Chair Mark Alden reported on the ad hoc Founding Presidential Search Committee meeting held December 10, 1999. Request was made for approval of the committee’s recommendations. 
  
Regent Phillips stated that he had a point of information on agenda item #7 from the last regularly scheduled Board meeting held December 1-2, 1999. He stated that item #7 did not legally approve or create Henderson State College and that appointing a president would be premature. 

1.   Report, Presidential Search Committee Henderson State College -(continue) 
  
Dr. Kirkpatrick related that he also had some questions of legality and referred them to Counsel Ray. They were as follows: 
ü   Henderson State College does not legally exist as no provisions to create the college had been accepted; only the planning of the college. 
ü   The Board could not approve funds that were not legally under their control (Legislative sub-committee controls). 
ü   The Legislative sub-committee could hire Dr. Moore as a planner/fundraiser, but not as President and that he would have to resign from CCSN. 
  
Counsel Ray responded as follows: 
ü   The Board did not approve Henderson State College specifically, the intent was implicate, as they did approve programs for start up, the budget and fundraising. 
ü   The Legislative sub-committee would provide money to the System, thus the Founding President would be an employee of the System. 
ü   The contract is a fixed term contract, with no guarantee that it would continue after the end date. 
  
Dr. Kirkpatrick stated that a search committee was formed and that they did not follow the instructions given to them. His reasons are as follows: 
ü   The committee failed to consider other candidates besides Dr. Moore. 
ü   His comments were cut-off by the committee Chair. 
ü   The polling of Regents violated the open meeting law. 
ü   The final results were fixed. 
  
Counsel Ray responded that the creation of a college is an on-going process and that at anytime it could be ended. Counsel Ray reported that the Search committee had the prerogative to do what they did. They bring their recommendations to the full Board and they can in turn not approve the recommendations. Regent Wiesner asked if the search committee action was significantly differest from what was done with John Richardson and members answered no. Regent Phillips emphasized his concern that the majority of the Board wanted a national search and the committee did not follow the charge. Regent Sisolak asked if the search committee followed the charge they were given, with Counsel Ray responding that it was the decision of the search committee to recommend Dr. Moore and that if the Board did not approve they could send the decision back to the committee. Regents Alden and Dondero pointed out that they had not discussed the vote with anyone prior to the meeting. 
  
Regent Hill pointed out that the committee agenda respectively reflected his original motion to either appoint Dr. Moore or have a national search. Dr. Kirkpatrick responded that by the search committee setting position qualifications as well as the contract they violated equal opportunity laws when they only considered 

1.   Report, Presidential Search Committee Henderson State College -(continue) 
  
Dr. Moore. Counsel Ray indicated that he had not seen anyone's civil rights violated by the search committee's decision. He added that the committee had decided to recommend someone and that he saw it as an internal transfer. 
  
Regent Phillips explained that the whole idea of having a search was to get someone that was qualified for the position. A search should entail finding people who are qualified for the position and who have founded a college. He indicated that the Board had an obligation to the State of Nevada to hire qualified people, and felt the committee had not done this. Regent Dondero responded that the Board knew Dr. Moore's qualifications, reputation with the community and what he had done since he has been with the System and that he was more then qualified for the position. 
  
Dr. Kirkpatrick pointed out that the search committee had overturned the actions of the full Board. Counsel Ray pointed out that the Board decided to consider others or appoint Dr. Moore, indicating that they could accept or deny the decision of the committee. 
  
Dr. Kirkpatrick related that he was concerned that the Board does not operate within the statutes and the Board Bylaws. He indicated that he wanted the following: 
ü   A copy of the legal opinion concerning the election of the Board Chair at the June meeting held in Carson City. 
ü   The agenda of the June 1999 Board meeting and the minutes discussing the election of the Board Chair. 
ü   A copy of the legal opinion of establishment of the Henderson State College. 
ü   The agenda and minutes of the December meeting discussion on agenda item #7. 
ü   The agenda and minutes of the Search Committee held on December 10, 1999. 
ü   The agenda and minutes of the Special Board meeting held on December 17, 1999. 
  
Chair Alden then gave his report. On December 10, 1999 the ad hoc Regents Founding Presidential Search committee met to discuss four action items regarding the search for a Founding president for Nevada's first state college. He indicated that the committee discussed and approved the criteria for the position of Founding President that Dr. Nichols provided at the search committee meeting. 

1.   Report, Presidential Search Committee Henderson State College -(continue) 
  
They included: 
ü   Doctoral degree and record of success throughout career. 
ü   Prior experience as a president within higher education, with a record of success in the endeavor. 
ü   Prior experiences at various levels of administrative leadership within higher education and/or as a faculty member. 
  
Regent Alden moved for acceptance of the report. Regent Wiesner seconded. 
  
Dr. Kirkpatrick stated that the report did not reflect that he was cut-off from discussion. 
  
Counsel Ray stated that the acceptance of the report and the recommendation of Dr. Moore should be treated separately. 
  
Regent Phillips questioned why the committee did not discuss any other applicants and why the committee chose an appointment and not a search. Regent Phillips said he had no problem spending $50,000 for a search and stated that he would like to see the qualifications of an applicant that had built a college. 
  
Dr. Kirkpatrick asked why the committee would set criteria for the position if they were going to appoint Dr. Moore. Chancellor Anderes stated that one of the issues surrounding this was a timing issue. He explained that the reality was that it was very important that there is leadership during the budget process. He noted that the Legislative sub-committee expressed a desire for an advocate to be at the table during the budget process and that Dr. Moore had been identified. He indicated that the System could not take this role without some conflict. He emphasized that the number of Founding Presidents were few and that Dr. Moore would not be doing this all by himself, the System would be a big part of guiding him through the process. 
  
Regent Phillips asked what could be lost by putting the decision off until they knew where the money was coming from, where it would be located, who would staff it, etc. Chancellor Anderes stated that a great deal could be lost including having any say in the creation process, the budget process and how it would relate to the System. He indicated that the sooner the Founding President was on board, the sooner all the questions could be answered. With Dr. Moore as President then the System would be a part of all the decision making including; the mission statement, costs, size, etc. Chancellor Anderes related that the Legislative sub-committee had decided to discuss the feasibility and a process of a new state college and that the UCCSN had been given the chance to help with this. It has already been 

1.   Report, Presidential Search Committee Henderson State College -(continue) 
  
determined by Counsel Ray that it is an ongoing process and that information is still being developed. Regent Sisolak clarified that they were just continuing the planning process and that he would not be pressured to appoint someone immediately. He stated that he was confident that the System could represent Henderson and that he did not like leaving CCSN without leadership. 
  
Regent Wiesner called the question (to end debate). 
  
The motion failed via a roll call vote with Regents Derby, Dondero, Gallagher, Hill, Seastrand and Wiesner voting yes and Regents Alden, Kirkpatrick, Phillips, Rosenberg, and Sisolak voting no. 
  
Dr. Kirkpatrick stated for the record "We are voting only on the planning process of the Henderson State College." He also asked what advisory committee had the Chancellor been referring to with, Chancellor Anderes stated that he was referring to the Legislative Advisory committee. He commented that the Legislative Advisory committee was trying to incorporate the System into the process. By incorporating the System, the System would then have influence in what was being done. Dr. Kirkpatrick pointed out that he was for a college in Henderson but not for the way that it was being done. He asked what the functions of the Founding President would be, with Chancellor Anderes responding that the System could independently work on a structure and be the defining force. Also the Founding President could bring in a certain perspective and be the creative force to establish a mission statement. Regent Kirkpatrick asked what student would be hurt if the Board did not do this, with Chancellor Anderes responding that the identified student access shortfall in 2010 would not be taken care of. 
  
Regent Seastrand asked if the $500,000 could be used in paying the Founding President and what exactly the risks were that the System was taking on by approving this. Regetn Seastrand stated that the risks he had identified were; an interim would have to be appointed for CCSN, there was no money for the new institution and that Dr. Moore would be without a job if this failed. He indicated that he thought the risks were not for the System, but only to Dr. Moore. Regent Rosenberg stated that Henderson State College was for the State of Nevada to provide an education for all students. He indicted that the contracted salary for the Founding President would be paid out of the $500,000 and that it would run through June 2001. 
  

1.   Report, Presidential Search Committee Henderson State College -(continue) 
  
Counsel Ray stated that the Board was voting to accept the report and what happened at the meeting. 
  
The report was accepted via a roll call vote with Regents Derby, Alden, Dondero, Gallagher, Hill, Rosenberg, Seastrand, and Wiesner voting yes and Regents Kirkpatrick, Phillips and Sisolak voting no. 
  
Regent Alden moved for approval of the appointment of Dr. Moore to Founding President. Regent Hill seconded. 
  
Dr. Kirkpatrick asked if Dr. Moore was available for questions with the answer being no that he was not. He then re-emphasized that he was cut off from discussion at the search committee. Regent Rosenberg responded that he had had time to ask questions and then he was asked to delay further comments but he was not cut off from discussion. 
  
Dr. Kirkpatrick moved for approval to table the appointment of a Founding President until the next meeting. Regent Phillips seconded. 
  
The motion failed via a roll call vote with Regents Derby, Alden, Dondero, Gallagher, Hill, Rosenberg, Seastrand and Wiesner voting no and Regents Kirkpatrick, Phillips and Sisolak voting yes. 
  
Regent Sisolak asked if there was an application process with Chancellor Anderes stating that there was not an application process, but the Board directed that Dr. Moore be interviewed if the search committee saw fit. Regent Sisolak then inquired that if they were asked to decide if they were going to interview Dr. Moore, how did it end up on the agenda to interview him. Chancellor Anderes stated that it was clear the committee would interview Dr. Moore. 
  
Regent Hill called the question (to end debate). 
  
The motion failed via a roll call vote with Regents Derby, Alden, Dondero, Gallagher, Hill, Rosenberg and Wiesner voting yes and Regents Kirkpatrick, Philips, Seastrand and Sisolak voting no. 

  
1.   Report, Presidential Search Committee Henderson State College -(continue) 
  
Dr. Kirkpatrick indicated that he had a problem with not being able to evaluate Dr. Moore for the position and to discuss his performance at CCSN. Regent Rosenberg stated that this would have to be more appropriately considered in a closed personnel session. Dr. Kirkpatrick again noted that he was not allowed to participate in the search committee meeting. Regent Hill stated that everyone had a chance to voice his or her opinion and that this needed to be brought to closure. Dr. Kirkpatrick indicated that he had no desire to delay the process, only that he wanted to be afforded the opportunity to examine more people for the position. Regent Phillips added that he was not saying there shouldn't be a state college or that Dr. Moore should not be the Founding President, just that the process on how they arrived at this decision was incorrect. 
  
Regent Sisolak stated that the whole Henderson State College process had gone quickly, and he wanted to know that after it was decided to move forward, how was Dr. Moore brought into the process. Chancellor Anderes answered that the non-regent members of the Legislative Advisory committee stated that there was a great interest in Dr. Moore. Regent Alden added that there was a ground swell of support for Dr. Moore from Henderson leadership. Regent Dondero stated that there was going to be more growth and fewer places for the students to go and that this was the start of a long range planning process to accommodate this. She added that Dr. Moore had demonstrated his ability to do a great job. 
  
Regent Gallagher indicated that the process had not been done all that quickly. She stated that the process had been discussed everywhere that it should have been. She explained that the legislative intent was to plan and implement the Henderson State College when it had a place and time. They decided that it was the place and time. She noted that a Founding President had to be in place in order to receive the information that the Board needed. The Henderson people voiced their opinion that they could work with Dr. Moore and this should be a part of the Board's decision making. Regent Seastrand emphasized that Dr. Moore's reputation was exceptional and that he is a brilliant leader. The people of Henderson know his qualifications and he has a good track record. With all this in mind, Regent Seastrand stated that he could not think of anyone else that would do a better job. 
  
Regent Phillips stated that he agreed that the process had to be started somewhere, but that there did not need to be a selection of a President, that all that was needed was a planner at this time. 
  
Dr. Kirkpatrick questioned if there was going to be any available money for this, with Regent Gallagher stating that the Legislature would have to pay for the FTE's no matter what. She indicated that she felt that when there was a facility presented where the students could receive an education the Legislature would come up with the money. 

1.   Report, Presidential Search Committee Henderson State College -(continue) 
  
The original motion to approve the appointment of Dr. Moore to Founding President carried via a roll call vote with Regents Derby, Alden, Dondero, Gallagher, Hill, Rosenberg, Seastrand and Wiesner voting yes and Regents Kirkpatrick, Phillips and Sisolak voting no. 
  
  
2.   Recommendation, Salary and Terms of Contract - Request was made for approval of the recommendation from Chair Jill Derby and Interim Chancellor Tom Anderes for the salary and contract terms for the new position of Founding President of the Henderson State College. 
  
Chancellor Anderes stated that the contract would be as follows: 
ü   Term of contract is from January 15, 2000 to June 30, 2001. 
ü   Salary of $175,000. 
ü   Auto allowance of $6,000 
ü   Housing allowance of $12,000 
ü   Host account of $5,000 
  
Chancellor Anderes stated that the funding for this package is coming from the legislative appropriation from AB 220. 
  
Regent Sisolak asked what other costs were involved with Chancellor Anderes stating that 20-25% was included for employee benefits. Regent Sisolak indicated that it was going to take approximately $350,000 for the 18-month contract, which was 70% of the funds committed. He asked what would happen if Henderson did not come up with their portion of the money, with Chancellor Anderes answering that if there were any shortfalls in funding, the System would not be held liable. 
  
Dr. Kirkpatrick asked if there was to be support staff with Chancellor Anderes stating that there were two positions in the projected budget. It was explained that the budget would be as follows: 
ü   $99,800 for support staff 
ü   $76,000 operating expenses 
ü   $10,000 for office/equipment 
Regent Alden offered a friendly amendment that the salary/benefit package come from the Legislative appropriation and that if there was a shortfall that terms of the contract would include termination in 30 days. Counsel Ray agreed that this could be a part of the contract terms. 
  

2.   Recommendation, Salary and Terms of Contract -(continue) 
  
Chancellor Anderes stated that when the Board takes final action the Legislature would transfer the funds to the System and that if Henderson State College failed the remaining money would revert back to the legislature. 
  
Dr. Kirkpatrick moved for approval of the amendment of Dr. Moore's salary from $175,000 to $165,000. Regent Phillips seconded. 
  
Counsel Ray stated to amend the salary it would take a majority vote. Chancellor Anderes stated that the salary schedule was looked at and the $175,000 salary falls right in between the universities and the community college presidents. He also added that this salary fell within the 80th percentile as the national standard. Chancellor Anderes stated that this was where the intermediate level salary would fall and that they were asking someone to go in with nothing and pull this all together and that this was a reflection of how the salary was determined. 
  
Via a roll call vote the motion failed with Regents Derby, Alden, Dondero, Gallagher, Hill, Rosenberg, Seastrand, Sisolak and Wiesner voting no and Regents Kirkpatrick and Phillips voting yes. 
  
Regent Gallagher moved for approval of the salary and contract terms. Regent Hill seconded. 
  
Motion carried via a roll call vote with Regents Derby, Alden, Dondero, Gallagher, Hill, Kirkpatrick, Rosenberg, Seastrand, Sisolak and Wiesner voting yes and Regent Phillips voting no. 
  
  
3.  Public Comment – Dr. Kirkpatrick stated that he has a series of questions to ask Dr. Moore. Counsel Ray stated that Dr. Moore has the right to have a closed personnel session and he has reserved his right to have that closed session. Dr. Kirkpatrick stated that he had an obligation to his constituents to ask Dr. Moore questions and that he had not been afforded that right. Chancellor Anderes stated that he could give them to Dr. Moore and ask for written comment. 
  

  
4.   New Business – Regent Kirkpatrick stated that he wanted an agenda item on the next agenda to prohibit Dr. Moore from utilizing CCSN resources at the Henderson State College. Regent Rosenberg stated that he did not feel that the Board could interfere with the free will of others at CCSN. Regent Sisolak added that he did not think Dr. Kirkpatrick was saying that he could not use others, but that during the interim period that staff would not be taken from CCSN. Regent Hill stated that historically all institutions had aided others in personnel or coordination efforts. Regent Sisolak agreed with Dr. Kirkpatrick's agenda item request to be place on the next agenda. 
  
  
The meeting adjourned at 1:40 pm. 
  
  
     Suzanne Ernst 
      Secretary of the Board