Minutes 05/05/2006

 Board of Regents’ 05/05/06 Special Meeting Minutes  Page 1 
  
  
SPECIAL MEETING


BOARD OF REGENTS 
NEVADA SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATION 
Room 1003, William Raggio Education Building 
University of Nevada, Reno 
1664 North Virginia Street, Reno 
Friday, May 5, 2006


Members Present:   Mr. Bret Whipple, Chair 
     Mr. Mark Alden 
     Dr. Jill Derby 
      Mrs. Thalia M. Dondero 
     Mrs. Dorothy S. Gallagher 
      Mr. Douglas Roman Hill 
     Mrs. Linda C. Howard 
      Mr. James Dean Leavitt 
     Mr. Howard Rosenberg 
      Dr. Jack Lund Schofield 
     Mr. Steve Sisolak 
      Mr. Michael B. Wixom 
Members Absent:  Dr. Stavros S. Anthony 
Others Present:   Chancellor James E. Rogers 
 Executive Vice Chancellor Daniel Klaich 
  Vice Chancellor, Academic & Student Affairs, Jane Nichols 
 Special Counsel Brooke Nielsen 
  President Fred Maryanski, NSC 
 President Carol Harter, UNLV 
  Interim President Joseph Crowley, UNR 
 Vice President Chris Maples, DRI 
  Dr. Milton Glick, UNR President Elect 
  Mr. Scott Wasserman, Board Secretary Elect 
  Secretary to the Board Fini S. Dobyns 
Also present were faculty senate chairs Dr. Paul Verburg, DRI and Dr. Leah J. Wilds, UNR. Student government leaders present included Mr. Peter Goatz, UNLV; Mr. Frederick Krauss, UNLV-GPSA; Mr. Jeff Panchavinin, UNLV President Elect and Mr. Jeff Champagne, UNR. 
  
Chair Bret Whipple called the meeting to order on Friday, May 5, 2006 at 9:56 a.m. with all members present except Regent Anthony. 
  
Regent Rosenberg led the pledge of allegiance. 
  
Mr. Jacob Hill, representing the Baha’i faith, offered the invocation. Mr. Hill is a senior in history at UNR and heads the campus Baha’i club. 

1.   Approved-Appointment, President, UNR – The Board approved Chancellor James E. Rogers’ request for the appointment of Dr. Milton Glick, as recommended by the Regents’ UNR President Search Committee on May 1, 2006 to be President of the University of Nevada, Reno. The proposed salary and contract terms were identified at the meeting. 
  
Chair Whipple thanked the members of the Regents’ Committee and the Institutional Advisory Committee for their diligent efforts. 
  
Regent Douglas Roman Hill recognized members of the Institutional Advisory Committee present at the meeting. He reported the UNR President Search Committee and Institutional Advisory Committee met April 7, April 14, and May 1, 2006. Mr. Alberto Pimentel, Consultant, A.T. Kearney, presented ten candidates to the committees for consideration for the position of President of the University of Nevada, Reno. After thorough review of resumes and discussion of the applicants, six candidates were chosen to be brought to the committees for personal interviews. Mr. Pimentel presented a set of questions to be asked of each of the candidates. 
  
Regent Hill reported that on Friday, April 14, 2006, it was learned that one candidate had accepted another position. Five candidates were interviewed on that date in an 11-hour meeting. It was determined that three candidates would be brought in for campus visits and to meet with a variety of constituents in Reno and Las Vegas. Those candidates included: Dr. Stephen G. Wells, President, Desert Research Institute, Dr. Milton Glick, Executive Vice President and Provost, Arizona State University and Dr. Marlene I. Strathe, Provost and Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs, Oklahoma State University. After the campus visits, the committees met, heard reports on the campus visits and held discussion on the three candidates. 
  
Regent Hill requested Board action on the following Committee recommendations: 
Ø   The committees recommended approval for six candidates to be interviewed: Dr. Jack Burns, Dr. William V. Flores, Dr. Milton Glick, Dr. Marlene I. Strathe, Mr. Ira Schwartz and Dr. Stephen G. Wells. 
Ø   The committees recommended approval of the set of questions to be asked of each candidate during the interviews. 
Ø   The committees recommended approval of three candidates for campus visits: Dr. Milton Glick, Dr. Marlene I. Strathe and Dr. Stephen G. Wells. 
Ø   The Institutional Advisory Committee recommended to the Regents’ Committee Dr. Milton Glick as President of the University of Nevada, Reno. 
Ø   The Regents’ UNR President Search Committee recommended approval of Dr. Milton Glick for the position of President of the University of Nevada, Reno. 
  
Regent Hill moved approval of the Committee recommendations and acceptance of the report. Regent Alden seconded. Motion carried. Regent Anthony was absent. 
  

1.   Approved-Appointment, President, UNR – (Cont’d.) 
Chair Whipple reviewed the contract terms: 
Ø   Contract period: August 1, 2006 through June 30, 2010. 
Ø   Annual salary: $400,000; $230,000 from state funds; $170,000 in supplemental salary funded by the UNR Foundation. 
Ø   Standard housing allowance: $18,000 per fiscal year. 
Ø   Standard automobile allowance: $8,000 per fiscal year. 
Ø   Host account: $5,000 per fiscal year. 
Ø   Standard moving expenses. 
  
Chair Whipple disclosed that Chancellor Rogers and his wife, Beverly, had made an unrestricted pledge to the University of Nevada, Reno Foundation in the amount of $80,000 per year that is irrevocable during President Glick’s term as President. 
  
Regent Hill moved approval of the appointment of Dr. Milton Glick as President of the University of Nevada, Reno pursuant to the contractual terms as presented. Regent Rosenberg seconded. 
  
Regent Sisolak clarified an August 1, 2006 start date and asked when Interim President Crowley’s contract would expire. Executive Vice Chancellor Klaich replied that Interim President Crowley’s current contract would expire June 30, 2006, though he has been asked to continue for an additional month. A request for his contract extension will be presented at the Board’s June meeting. Regent Sisolak asked whether the housing and automobile allowances were in addition to the $400,000 annual salary. Chair Whipple replied that they were. 
  
Regent Alden clarified that $230,000 of the salary would be paid with state funds and $170,000 in supplemental pay would be paid by the UNR Foundation. He asked whether the Board was obligated to make the supplemental payment should the Foundation be unable to do so. Executive Vice Chancellor Klaich replied they were not. These are the same supplemental salary terms as have been approved for other presidents. 
  
Upon a role call vote the motion carried. Regents Wixom, Alden, Derby, Dondero, Gallagher, Hill, Howard, Leavitt, Rosenberg, Schofield, Sisolak and Whipple voted yes. Regent Anthony was absent. 
  
Dr. Glick said it was a very exciting time, adding that the previous month had provided a fascinating opportunity to become familiar with a new group of people in a new community. He then introduced his wife, Peggy. In meetings with community members, faculty, staff, students, Board members and search committee members Dr. Glick has discovered a community ready to make things happen; one that is loyal to the university and committed to the state. He said that Reno offers a high quality of life and is committed to diversifying its economy. He believes that everyone is ready for the university to decide what it wants to be when it grows up. He felt this is an important 

1.   Approved-Appointment, President, UNR – (Cont’d.) 
time in the institution’s history with decisions concerning how large the university should be, how to best serve the state, how Nevada will best be served by its universities working together, how to address the need to enhance the health sciences throughout the state and how to ensure that Reno and the state have the best educated population in the nation. He promised to work collaboratively to achieve this and to ensure the diversity of the institution matches the diversity of the nation and state. He expressed his gratitude to Interim President Crowley. 
  
Regent Hill observed that Dr. Glick’s father was born in McGill, Nevada. 
  
Chair Whipple welcomed Dr. Glick and expressed his excitement for working with him in the future. 
  
2.  Public Comment - Regent Howard introduced Miss Stevie Dugan, a student from Marshall C. Darnell Elementary School in Las Vegas, who was attending the meeting for the purpose of writing a report on the Board of Regents for her class. 
  
3.   Approved-Appointment, Secretary of the Board – The Board approved Regent Dorothy S. Gallagher’s request, on behalf of the Board Secretary Search Committee, for the appointment of Mr. Scott Wasserman as Secretary of the Board of Regents, effective May 22, 2006. The proposed salary and contract terms were identified at the meeting (Ref. A on file in the Board office) . 
  
Chair Whipple thanked Vice Chairman Gallagher for her tireless efforts during this important search. He also acknowledged Regents Dondero and Rosenberg for their work on the committee, noting that the importance of this committee’s work should not be understated. 
  
Regent Gallagher introduced Mr. Scott Wasserman. She said the committee conducted a very careful search and was pleased to have someone with Mr. Wasserman’s abilities, background and experience apply for the position. 
  
Executive Vice Chancellor Klaich reviewed the contract terms: 
Ø   Base salary: $106,808. 
Ø   COLA: Eligible for cost of living adjustment on July 1, 2006. 
Ø   Contract start date: May 22, 2006. 
Ø   Notice of termination: Contract for 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 will have a 180-day notice clause. As of July 1, 2007, a 365-day notice of termination will be in effect. 
  
Regent Gallagher moved approval of the appointment of Mr. Scott Wasserman as Secretary of the Board of Regents. Regent Hill seconded. 
  
Regent Sisolak asked about the salary range for the position. Mrs. Carla Henson, Director, Human Resources-System Administration, replied that the recommended salary 

3.   Approved-Appointment, Secretary of the Board – (Cont’d.) 
was near the top of the salary range for this particular grade. The Board has the ability to set the salary of the Secretary of the Board. Regent Sisolak requested the salary range. Mrs. Henson replied the position is a grade 5 with a range of $66,000-$106,808. 
  
Regent Howard asked what amount had been advertised. Mrs. Henson replied that a minimum starting salary of $75,000 had been advertised. 
  
Regent Dondero asked how many days Mr. Wasserman would work in southern Nevada and whether an office had been provided for him there. Regent Gallagher replied that Mr. Wasserman would travel to Las Vegas on an as-required basis. A specific number of days had not been determined. Regent Dondero asked whether an office would be provided in Las Vegas. Chancellor Rogers praised Mr. Wasserman based on Chancellor Rogers’ legislative experience with him. He was pleased that Mr. Wasserman had applied for the position and urged Board approval. He said they would find office space for Mr. Wasserman in Las Vegas. 
  
Chair Whipple asked Mr. Wasserman to provide a bit of background information. Mr. Wasserman came to Nevada in 1987 after attending law school at the University of Pacific, McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento, California. He began working with the Nevada Legislature in 1987, where he served for eighteen years; fifteen of which were spent in a supervisory capacity. During the final eight years, he served as the Chief Deputy Legislative Council. He is very familiar with the Board’s redistricting efforts. Most recently Mr. Wasserman worked for the Office of the Attorney General where he served as a Deputy Attorney General representing the Board of Examiners, the State Board of Finance, the Department of Administration, the State Treasurer, the Personnel Commission and the Department of Personnel. His work there made him very familiar with the Nevada Open Meeting Law. He regarded this position as a wonderful opportunity to work with the Board of Regents and the University System. 
  
Regent Gallagher noted that Mr. Wasserman is an attorney. 
  
Motion carried. Regent Anthony was absent. 
  
Chair Whipple recognized former Secretary, Mrs. Fini Dobyns, adding that he has enjoyed working with her. He noted that Mrs. Dobyns would remain working in the Board office in her former capacity. 
  
4.   Approved-Building Naming Recommendation, UNLV – The Board approved Regents Thalia Dondero, Jill Derby, Linda Howard, and Howard Rosenberg’s request, at the request of CSUN President, Mr. Peter Goatz, and UNLV GPSA President, Mr. Frederick W. Krauss, naming the Classroom Building Complex(CBC) on the UNLV campus in honor of Dr. Carol C. Harter in recognition of her years of service as President of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Approval of this naming recommendation required waiver of provisions in the Procedures & Guidelines Manual (Chapter 1, Section 2.2.g)   (Ref. B on file in the Board office) . 
  

4.   Approved-Building Naming Recommendation, UNLV – (Cont’d.) 
Mr. Frederick Krauss, GPSA President-UNLV, Mr. Peter Goatz, former Student Body President-UNLV, and Mr. Jeff Panchavinin, current Student Body President-UNLV, introduced themselves. 
  
Mr. Krauss related that the students recognized President Harter’s service to UNLV and wanted to honor her in an appropriate manner. It seemed appropriate to name the complex in her honor given her efforts as President. During this time, UNLV sustained major student population growth, 100 new degree programs, and many new buildings. 
  
Mr. Goatz recalled that the Regents had expressed a desire to name something in President Harter’s honor and to dedicate a place on the UNLV campus to memorialize her efforts. This particular building is one of the few unnamed buildings on campus and has been unnamed for 12 years. He believed that President Harter deserves the honor. 
  
Regent Howard agreed with the students and felt it was an honorable thing for the Board to do. She said that President Harter deserves this. 
  
Regent Rosenberg moved approval of waiving the provisions in the Procedures & Guidelines Manual (Chapter 1, Section 2.2.g) . Regent Dondero seconded. Motion carried. Regent Anthony was absent. 
  
Regent Howard moved approval of naming the Classroom Building Complex(CBC) on the UNLV campus in honor of Dr. Carol C. Harter. Regent Rosenberg seconded. Upon a role call vote the motion carried. Regents Alden, Derby, Dondero, Gallagher, Hill, Howard, Leavitt, Rosenberg, Schofield, Sisolak, Whipple and Wixom voted yes. Regent Anthony was absent. 
  
Chair Whipple thanked President Harter for her many years of service and hard work. 
  
President Harter was touched by the students who came forward. Ironically, Presidents are unable to spend a great deal of time with their students. She said the honor made her recall why she was in the education business. 
  
5.   Approved-Reemployment of PERS Retiree, NSC – The Board approved President Fred Maryanski’s request for the reemployment of PERS retiree, Dr. Elizabeth Duncombe (Ref. C on file in the Board office) . 
  
President Maryanski reported that the College was in an exceptional situation. The position currently occupied by Dr. Duncombe is the Coordinator of Student Teaching. The College feels it is vital that a former teacher from the Clark County School District hold the position. A second unsuccessful search was recently conducted prompting the 

5.   Approved-Reemployment of PERS Retiree, NSC – (Cont’d.) 
request to continue Dr. Duncombe’s employment in the position. A subsequent search will be conducted next year. 
  
Regent Alden said the Board was fortunate to have someone with Dr. Duncombe’s background. 
  
Regent Alden moved approval of the reemployment of PERS retiree, Dr. Elizabeth Duncombe at NSC. Regent Derby seconded. 
  
Regent Sisolak asked about efforts made to recruit and advertise for the position. President Maryanski replied the college employed the standard advertising. Additionally, faculty from the education program who are also alumni of the Clark County School District (CCSD) made an effort to locate people with the proper skills and interest in the position. NSC has been unsuccessful in identifying such a candidate on a permanent basis. Regent Sisolak asked about the specific methods employed. President Maryanski replied that a public, open search was conducted with advertising in addition to working the internal grapevine in search of faculty with the desired qualities. NSC has three faculty members in education who were formerly employed by the CCSD. NSC has been unsuccessful in adding an additional member at this point. Regent Sisolak asked whether they worked through the school district for a list of potential contacts. President Maryanski replied that the committee chair worked informally with known contacts. The best candidate would be a current school district employee so as to avoid the PERS dilemma. NSC cannot ask the school district to overtly recruit their employees, however, they have looked for people who are seeking another opportunity. Regent Sisolak observed that a seamless transition could be provided by working with the CCSD. He expressed opposition to rehiring PERS retirees, observing that the Legislature has o bjected to this in the past though they have granted exceptions for extremely rare circumstances. He again asked about the advertising used. President Maryanski replied they used the standard advertising on higheredjobs.com in addition to an advertisement in the Las Vegas Review Journal , which is the standard method for hiring that has been successful in other searches. President Maryanski committed to working with the superintendent on this issue. They both agree it is important to provide a seamless transition for students. He said the request was not made in a casual manner. Regent Sisolak said his comments had no reflection on Dr. Duncombe. He did not feel that President Maryanski had met the burden of proof for such a hire. President Maryanski explained that NSC faculty had explored considerable contacts, but the college was not successful. 
  
Regent Hill asked about the salary. President Maryanski estimated it was approximately $50,000 per year. Regent Hill suggested that the reason they might be having trouble filling the position was due to an insufficient salary. 
  
Regent Sisolak asked whether the Board was being asked to approve a contract for an unknown salary amount. President Maryanski clarified that the salary was already determined, however, he did not have that information with him. 

5.   Approved-Reemployment of PERS Retiree, NSC – (Cont’d.) 
  
Executive Vice Chancellor Klaich observed that the Board was not being asked to approve the contract, but rather to allow President Maryanski to execute the contract with a PERS retiree. President Maryanski stated that education salaries were in the $50,000 
range. Regent Sisolak asked where he could find the information regarding the salary. President Maryanski replied the information was not provided in the meeting material since they were not presenting the contract for approval. 
  
Upon a role call vote the motion carried. Regents Derby, Dondero, Gallagher, Hill, Howard, Leavitt, Rosenberg, Schofield, Whipple, Wixom and Alden voted yes. Regent Sisolak voted no. Regent Anthony was absent. 
  
6.   Approved-Summer 2006 Salary Schedule, UNR – The Board approved Interim President Joseph N. Crowley’s request, in accordance with Title 4, Chapter 3, Section 33, for the summer salary schedule for the University of Nevada, Reno for the 2006 Summer Session (Ref. D on file in the Board office) . 
  
Regent Alden moved approval of the 2006 summer salary schedule for UNR. Regent Hill seconded. Motion carried. Regent Rosenberg abstained. Regent Anthony was absent. 
  
7.   Information Only-2007 Bill Draft Requests – Nevada Revised Statutes 218.2455 permits the Board of Regents to request up to five bill drafts on behalf of the Nevada System of Higher Education. The Board had an initial discussion regarding potential NSHE bill drafts for the 2007 Session of the Nevada State Legislature. The Board also recommended other bills for consideration further revising the list. Final action will be requested at the June 2006 Board meeting (Ref. E on file in the Board office) . 
  
Executive Vice Chancellor Klaich discussed a tentative list of items that staff identified for possible bill drafts: 
1.   Revenue bond authorization – Forwarded by the Board every year, this provides an update of the list and a request to increase bonding capacity. 
2.   Carry forward of unexpended funds – Previously discussed by the Board rather than reverting such funds to the state, this proposition has not been well received in the Legislature. Significant thought should be given to pursuing this issue prior to utilizing one of the allotted bill draft requests. 
3.   Math, science, technology scholarships – An outgrowth of the Chancellor’s last State of the System address, this represents an overall initiative to encourage math, science, engineering and technology education in the State of Nevada at all levels with a request for the Legislature to fund scholarships in these areas. 
4.   Lease purchase agreements/Public Works Board – The Chancellor is not enamored of some aspects of working with the State Public Works Board (SPWB) , although he has worked closely with them over the past year. Legislation 

7.   Information Only-2007 Bill Draft Requests – (Cont’d.) 
proposed in the previous session would have allowed NSHE to opt out of the SPWB process. Positive discussions have been held between NSHE staff and the SPWB regarding an agreement providing for the delegation of authority over projects, thereby avoiding the necessity for any bill drafts or hearings. Lease-purchase or third-party financing transactions will play a significant role in the System’s future. NSHE was included in the third-party financing statute with a limitation of three projects over the biennium. Current projects under consideration include UNLV’s advanced orthodontics building. This request would eliminate the three-project cap. An interim study committee is currently considering the matter, which may negate the necessity for a bill draft request. 
5.   Formula funding study – a request for an interim study regarding funding for excellence rather than for actual headcount. 
6.   Consent to treatment or experiment involving a ward (NRS 159.0805)   (UNR and UNLV) – The consent of a ward is required in order to participate in certain studies. The two universities would like to alleviate a statutory impediment that currently prevents research from moving forward. 
7.   Quality review committee for certain health related organizations (UNSOM) – Peer review committees for certain health organizations are allowed to meet and evaluate programs in a confidential manner not subject to the disclosure of the Nevada Open Meeting Law. It allows for a frank, open and honest discussion of a program’s shortcomings and how they can be improved. This request would include the University of Nevada School of Medicine as one of the listed entities under this statute. 
8.   Reduced tuition for teacher training programs – UNLV proposed a reduced tuition in an effort to help meet the duty and burden to provide additional teachers for the state. This request would allow the entire System to participate in this effort.
9.  Other Board initiatives. 
  
Regent Alden felt the revenue bond authorization should be pursued. He said that allowing the carry forward of unexpended funds would provide an incentive for not spending all of the money allocated in a given biennium. Noting the System’s explosive growth, he expressed the need for pursuing a means of capital expansion besides the SPWB. 
  
Regent Leavitt suggested the Board should not be limited to only five bill draft requests. 
  
Regent Wixom asked whether the interim study committee would reach a conclusion about the lease purchase agreements in a timeframe that would allow the Board to modify its request. Executive Vice Chancellor Klaich said they would likely present legislative proposals of their own. He was unsure when a decision would be reached. It is likely their schedule will not coincide with the Board’s. Initial discussions expressed the System’s desire to be treated similarly to the other agencies that are authorized to employ this process. A problem occurred when unions in southern Nevada expressed displeasure with the manner in which a prior State of Nevada lease-purchase project was handled, 

7.   Information Only-2007 Bill Draft Requests – (Cont’d.) 
including difficulties perceived by the unions with competitive bidding and prevailing wage. In the first two hearings of the committee, no substantive issue was seen in regard to the statutes as drafted. It was indicated there would be no problem with fully implementing the NSHE as a full partner in those statutes. The focus is now on problems with implementing the statutes. Until a final report is provided it is not known what the committee will recommend. 
  
Regent Wixom requested that the Board focus in detail on the direction for lease-finance and other types of developments. He felt the Board’s efforts should be focused entirely on the System’s needs. Executive Vice Chancellor Klaich recommended the Board not waste a bill draft request on the lease-purchase issue while still keeping the Public Works portion of it alive, particularly while the System is involved in negotiations. Regent Wixom requested the bill draft focus on the Public Works Board issue. 
  
Chancellor Rogers said the SPWB was proposing to get out of the System’s business. A potential agreement was discussed. He estimated that an initial draft would be prepared in the next two-three weeks. Regent Wixom observed that the poor performance exhibited in the past would not help the System in its future efforts. Chancellor Rogers said the SPWB understands that and realizes they will be criticized when projects are not completed in a timely basis. 
  
Regent Hill asked whether the System could approach others to introduce a bill on the System’s behalf. Executive Vice Chancellor Klaich replied that they could in a cautious manner that did not allow Board policy to be circumvented. Regent Hill hoped that System staff would determine which bills were better introduced by certain individuals. Regent Hill recalled the Chancellor had proposed the carry forward of unexpended funds be used at the institutions for scholarships. He felt that was a marvelous idea for a state that does not adequately fund need-based scholarships. 
  
Regent Hill recalled a failed driver’s license bill concerning foreign students. Conservative groups in the state opposed the bill causing NSHE to lose other bills affecting foreign students. Executive Vice Chancellor Klaich said the bill embroiled the System in some unfortunate rhetoric involving the discussion of false licenses, terrorism and potential racism. The Director of International Studies at UNR is working with the Department of Motor Vehicles for alternate methodologies. Regent Hill asked whether it damaged the System’s ability to recruit foreign students. Executive Vice Chancellor Klaich felt it did not because those students have been provided for elsewhere. He said it was actually the spouses of foreign students that had objected. The students qualified for identification while the unemployed spouses of married foreign students were unable to obtain driver’s licenses. 
  
Regent Hill observed an unusual number of Asian and Indian engineering graduates at Texas A&M. He felt that scholarships for math, science and technology students were incredibly important. Chancellor Rogers said they would do a better job in the coming session of gathering allies to determine the appropriate use of any leftover funds. 

7.   Information Only-2007 Bill Draft Requests – (Cont’d.) 
  
Executive Vice Chancellor Klaich said the System operating budget would include a math, science and engineering package of initiatives for Board consideration as a high budgetary priority for enhancements. Chancellor Rogers said they would also include figures for the health sciences project, which will be segregated by institution. Discussions are currently underway with legislators regarding this issue. 
  
Regent Sisolak asked whether nursing could be added to the request for reduced tuition for teacher training programs. Vice Chancellor Nichols replied that it could, but the institutions would bear the burden of paying for the tuition. If the state agrees to the request, it is not a burden for the institutions. She acknowledged that both nursing and teaching have been identified by interim committees and legislators as key areas. Executive Vice Chancellor Klaich recalled the state had previously adopted a nursing loan fund, which was not funded at a high level. The repayments of those loans went to the state general fund rather than to perpetuate the loan fund and encourage more nursing students. 
  
Regent Sisolak felt the Board needed to address part-time faculty salaries. He acknowledged the institutions have made some progress, but felt more effort was necessary. Executive Vice Chancellor Klaich said the budget construction process included a line item for enhancements to part-time salaries. Regent Sisolak noted that some institutions had made more progress than others. He was hopeful that those who made more progress would not be penalized. Executive Vice Chancellor Klaich said that three models were considered. The model ultimately selected addressed Regent Sisolak’s concerns. 
  
Regent Rosenberg agreed the health initiative is very important, but felt that English 101 and some of the humanities courses are vital. He agreed that math and science were important, but without the humanities/social science component they would not produce an educated person. He encouraged the Board not to lose sight of that. He advocated for a fully-rounded, educated human being that can make life worthwhile for a society. 
  
Regent Rosenberg asked whether the carry forward of unexpended funds would allow institutions to keep tuition and fee monies. Executive Vice Chancellor Klaich replied that was not included in the request. It is being addressed by means of negotiation with the money committees regarding the manner in which the budget is constructed. He felt it was a matter of budget presentation and negotiation rather than utilization of a bill draft. Regent Rosenberg observed that President Glick had been very successful achieving this in Arizona. 
  
Regent Rosenberg asked whether the Board could ask the Legislature about amending the Open Meeting Law within certain areas the Board has found it almost impossible to function. Chancellor Rogers said he had talked with several legislators recently regarding this matter. He felt there was a general awareness and that System staff would work on this issue. 
  

7.   Information Only-2007 Bill Draft Requests – (Cont’d.) 
Chancellor Rogers clarified they would not take funds away from one area (i.e., English Department) to give to another (i.e., School of Medicine) . They are trying to develop a new approach for money, which should have some positive effect on the other areas (i.e., English) . He asked the Board to think in larger terms. Regent Rosenberg requested the Chancellor keep a broad view. 
  
Regent Howard agreed that need-based scholarships are becoming more critical. She asked what was being done with regard to need-based scholarships. Executive Vice Chancellor Klaich replied that a report would be provided at the next meeting. The Board will also consider the matter when approving the allocation of fee increases. Board policy mandates that up to 50% of fee increases may be allocated to need-based scholarships. Progress made by the implementation of this policy will be demonstrated during this discussion. Regent Howard was unsure about the connection with fee increases. Executive Vice Chancellor Klaich explained that when the Board approves fee increases for each of the System institutions, the Board also determines how those fee increases will be used. A portion of the fees will be set aside for need-based access funds. 
  
Regent Derby expressed support for a bill draft concerning the math, science and technology scholarships, feeling it was important for the country’s future. She agreed there is a huge issue concerning America’s competitiveness in the 21stCentury. She also expressed her support for and her belief in the importance of the general and liberal education. She felt that adding nursing to the reduced tuition bill draft was imperative. 
  
Regent Howard left the meeting. 
  
Regent Derby suggested that funding for excellence was equally important as funding for body count. She related the funding formula had been a huge step forward for the System, guaranteeing that the System’s growth was provided for. She said she was also an advocate of incentives that fund and reward excellence. She urged a note of caution in being too quick to move away from the funding formula, noting that Board members had played a significant role in this determination. Executive Vice Chancellor Klaich said there was no desire to eliminate the funding formula. Chancellor Rogers clarified it was a matter of refinement in taking the body count while also considering the need for retention and rewarding the System for such accomplishments. Regent Derby was pleased with this analysis. 
  
Regent Schofield expressed concern for what had been expressed about America’s science and technology. Sixty years ago, China was a malnourished country. After visiting the country again in 2000, he was amazed to see the progress the country had realized. Following a 2005 visit, Regent Schofield observed that a tremendous amount of progress had been made due to their educational system. He observed the Chinese excel in science, math and technology. 
  
Regent Howard entered the meeting. 

7.   Information Only-2007 Bill Draft Requests – (Cont’d.) 
  
Regent Schofield said the Chinese people are striving for world peace to avoid the waste of resources and humanity. He agreed that America needs to focus its efforts in these areas in order to remain competitive. 
  
Regent Dondero asked whether any of the bill draft requests could be combined. Executive Vice Chancellor Klaich replied they could not. A cohesive, one subject-matter bill draft is required. He said there may be opportunities for some slight crossover, but multiple subject matters could not be included in a single bill. Regent Dondero observed that some matters were related (i.e., when constructing a building that involves opting out of the SPWB process, the need for a revenue bond or a lease-purchase agreement) . Executive Vice Chancellor Klaich stated that the revenue bond bill is always a stand-alone item. He felt that combining the request for reduced tuition for nursing and teaching could be accommodated. As input is received from the Board, staff will take this request into account. 
  
2.  Public Comment – (Cont’d.) 
Executive Vice Chancellor Klaich related that Mrs. Dobyns and UNR President Search Committee Secretary, Ms. Mary Lou Moser had recently made extraordinary efforts to accommodate the mailing of agendas for the UNR President Search Committee. After contacting the two women at 9:00 p.m. on Sunday night, they were both in the office at 5:00 a.m. on Monday to prepare, copy, mail and post the agendas as required by the Nevada Open Meeting Law. Executive Vice Chancellor Klaich praised Mrs. Dobyns’ efforts while serving as the Board’s secretary. 
  
Vice Chancellor Nichols introduced Mrs. Sharon Wurm, Director of Financial Aid-System Administration. Mrs. Wurm previously worked for TMCC and will be a great asset to the Board when considering scholarship issues. Regent Howard asked whether this was a newly created position. Vice Chancellor Nichols replied that she had a number of vacancies in her department. This existing position was recently reclassified. 
  
Regent Derby observed that during Mrs. Dobyns’ term as Board Secretary she was short staffed. She related that Mrs. Dobyns always responded to her requests with a quick and willing response. She thanked Mrs. Dobyns for her service. 
  
Chair Whipple announced that a welcoming ceremony would be held for Dr. Glick following the Board meeting. He thanked Interim President Joseph Crowley for his extended service. 
  
8.   New Business – Regent Rosenberg asked whether the special meeting planned for May 17 th could be scheduled at 9:00 a.m., explaining that UNR was conducting their Honor the Best ceremony in the afternoon that same day, which would prevent President Crowley from attending the special meeting. 
  
Regent Alden asked whether more meetings could be held via videoconference. Chair Whipple said he would take it under advisement. 

8.  New Business – (Cont’d.) 
  
Regent Sisolak said he would appreciate some consideration given to those Regents who are the sole proprietors of their own businesses, noting there had been an enormous number of Regent meetings lately. The time commitment has been monumental causing the loss of several working days. Scheduling meetings in the morning typically results in the loss of another business day. He said he would appreciate some consideration of the time constraints of some Board members who have difficulty in obtaining time away from work. 
  
Regent Alden felt it was important the Board give more consideration to conducting meetings via videoconference. 
  
The meeting adjourned at 11:35 a.m. 
  
Fini S. Dobyns 
Secretary to the Board of Regents