06/27/1980

UCCSN Board of Regents' Meeting Minutes
June 27-28, 1980








06-27-1980

Pages 82-133

BOARD OF REGENTS

UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA SYSTEM

June 27-28, 1980



The Board of Regents met on the above date in The Center for

Religion and Life, 1101 N. Virginia, Reno.



Members present: Mr. Robert A. Cashell, Chairman

Mr. James L. Buchanan, II

Mrs. Molly F. Knudtsen

Dr. Louis E. Lombardi

Mr. John R. Mc Bride

Mr. John Tom Ross

Mrs. June F. Whitley



Members absent: Mrs. Lilly Fong

Mr. Chris Karamanos



Others present: Chancellor Donald H. Baepler

President William Berg

President Joseph N. Crowley

President Jack Davis

President James Eardley

President Judith Eaton

President Leonard Goodall

President Clifford Murino

Board Secretary Bonnie Smotony



Also present were Senate Representatives Campana (DRI), Claybrook

(WNCC), Elliott (TMCC), Emerson (NNCC), Fry (UNLV), Gochnour

(CCCC), Moser (Unit), and Seibert (UNR), and representatives from

student associations.



The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cashell at 10:35 A.M.

at which time the Chair was assumed by Vice Chairman Ross.



Upon motion by Mr. Cashell, seconded by Mrs. Whitley, and unani-

mous vote, the Board convened into personnel session to discuss

the professional competence of members of the Chancellor's staff.

The Board reconvened into open session at 11:30 A.M.



1. Adoption of Consent Agenda



Adoption of the Consent Agenda (identified as Ref. A and

filed with permanent minutes) was recommended. The Consent

Agenda contained the following items:



1. Approval of minutes of previous meetings.



2. Report of gifts and grants.



3. Increase in Laboratory fees at TMCC to $50 for Dental

Radiography and $50 for Dental Materials and Labora-

tory Techniques.



4. Augmentation of the following special accounts from

the Board of Regents Special Projects Account:



DRI Interview and Recruiting Account $ 7,500

UNLV Interview and Recruiting Account 10,000

UNR Interview and Recruiting Account 15,000

NNCC Interview and Recruiting Account 2,000

School of Medicine Admissions Committee

Travel 8,950



5. Request for extension of leave of absence without pay

for Dr. Mohamed Yousef for an additional year; and a

two-year leave of absence without pay for Dr. Satish

Bhatnagar.



6. Appointments to College of Business Administration

Advisory Board, UNR, for three-year terms ending June

30, 1983, of the following:



Wayne Condon, President, Security Bank of Nevada -

reappointment

George Drews, Casino Consultant - reappointment

Tom Edwards, General Manager, Nevada Bell (retired) -

reappointment

E. T. Hermann, President, Pacific Freeport Group -

reappointment

Luther Mack, President, Mc Donald's of Reno - reap-

pointment

Thomas Wilson, President, Thomas C. Wilson

Advertising - reappointment

Richard Goeglein, President, Harrah's Inc. - new

appointment



7. Appointments to Citizens Advisory Committee, College

of Agriculture, for three-year terms ending 1983, of

the following:



Dorothy Gallagher, Elko - new appointment

Hollis Harris, Pahrump - reappointment

Larry Miller, Fallon - reappointment

Gene Brinkerhoff, Lovelock - new appointment

Lorraine Scatena, Yerington - reappointment

Arvin Boerlin, Carson City, and Robert Ruud, of

Pahrump to the Senior Advisory Board.



8. Appointments of the following to the UNLV Foundation

Fund Board:



Ken Sullivan

Sig Rogich

Sherman Miller

Jerry Herbst

Ernest Becker, Sr.



9. Award of a bid totalling $93,444 to B & D Construction

for the Aquaculture Laboratory at the Main Station

Farm.



10. a) Award to Clark County of an easement in the north-

west part of the UNLV Campus for flood control

purposes.



b) Award to Clark County of an easement at the new

entrance to the Campus now being completed in

front of Grant Hall, in order to maintain the

traffic light that is to be installed at the in-

tersection of Maryland Parkway and Harmon Avenue.



c) Award to Clark County of three small easements,

each three foot square, on the north side of

Tropicana Avenue to be used as bases for flashing

yellow lights to warn motorists of the speed limit

in front of Paradise Elementary School.



d) Award to Nevada Power Company of a right-of-way

grant for construction of a concrete pad 18-1/2' x

22' to mount transformers, south of the parking

lot behind the Business Services Building and ad-

jacent to the underground power line running west

from University Road.



11. Approval of the following estimative budgets for TMCC:



1. Printing and Duplicating Sales



Revenue

Sales Income $54,500



Expenditures

Classified Salaries $13,425

Fringe Benefits 2,011

Operating 37,900

Ending Fund Balance 1,164



Total $54,500



2. Food Service



Revenue

Sales Income $60,000



Expenditures

Classified Salaries $11,000

Wages 20,000

Fringe Benefits 2,200

Operating 25,300

Ending Fund Balance 1,500



Total $60,000



3. Associated Students



Revenue

Student Fees $20,000



Expenditures

ASTM Office $ 5,450

Office Operating $ 500

USUNS Dues 550

Wages 750

*Grants-in-Aid 2,750

Travel 400

Executive Board

Host/Special Meeting

Account 500

Student Newspaper Publications 4,500

Student Activities Fund 9,000

Student Appropriations Board 1,050



Total $20,000



Budget does not reflect carry-over from 1979-1980

estimated $1,500 which will be deposited in Student

Appropriations Account.



*Executives $1,500

Senators 1,248



12. Approval of a transfer (#831) of $12,072.77 from the

Contingency Reserve to the Chancellor's Office

Operating to provide additional funds needed for the

balance of the current fiscal year.



13. Finalization of the CCCC reorganization by creation of

additional instructional Division to house Graphics,

Theater, Speech, Fine Arts, English, Foreign Languages

and Public Relations. No increase in administrative

staffing or administrative costs are anticipated.



14. Revision of the Purchasing policy to (1) raise the

amount requiring advertisement for bids from $2,500 to

$5,000 to conform to bidding limits established by the

1979 Legislature; and (2) permit the purchase of se-

lected hay to be used by the College of Agriculture for

research or experimental tests after substantiation

of quotes.



15. Proposed change in leave designation for Professor

Joseph Mc Cullough from sabbatical leave to adminis-

trative leave.



16. Adoption of amended stock powers resolution to broaden

the wording to include stock brokers as well as banks.



17. Change in the credit hour requirement for graduation

in the Department of Civil Engineering, College of

Engineering, from 134 to 130 credits. This consti-

tutes no reduction of graduation standards, and the

lower credit requirement is accomplished mainly by

having students start their mathematics sequence

with a more advanced course.



18. Delegation of authority to the Administration to award

a bid for construction of a concession stand at Mackay

Stadium, at an estimated cost of $35,000, with com-

pletion anticipated prior to the 1980 football season.



At Mrs. Knudtsen's request, Item 15 was removed from the

Consent Agenda, to be considered on the Action Agenda.



Mr. Buchanan moved adoption of the Consent Agenda as pre-

sented, with the removal of Item 15. Motion seconded by

Mr. Mc Bride.



(Note to Minutes: Item 15 was subsequently deferred.)



The following gifts were reported in addition to those

included with the Consent Agenda:



(1) 500 shares of Gannett Company, Inc. common

stock, from Mr. and Mrs. Paul A. Leonard.



(2) Two gifts from the Speidel Newspaper Charitable

Foundation: $3,537.65 made at the request of Mr.

and Mrs. Paul A. Leonard, and $10,000 made at the

request of Mr. Charles H. Stout.



These three gifts are to be used to establish the Guy

L. Leonard Memorial Fund, a permanent endowment, at

UNR, with the following conditions:



The proceeds from the sale of this stock shall consti-

tute an irrevocable gift and may be combined with other

Regents' funds for investment purposes.



The income from the permanently established fund shall

be devoted to the following purposes at the University

of Nevada-Reno:



1. For so long as the University of Nevada-Reno

and the Department of Philosophy agree that the

objectives and purposes of the LEONARD CONFER-

ENCE ON PHILOSOPHY can still be met, two-thirds

(2/3) of the income generated annually by this

fund shall be accumulated and used in support

of the LEONARD CONFERENCE ON PHILOSOPHY.



2. It is our intent that the remaining one-third

(1/3) of the income generated annually by this

fund shall be devoted to either student schol-

arship or faculty development programs within

the Departments of English and Physics. The

determination of which program is to be sup-

ported annually shall be at the discretion of

the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences

following recommendations from the respective

Departmental Chairpersons.



If a scholarship program is to be supported, it

is our intent that an award be made to junior,

senior or graduate students and that the cen-

tral focus of the selection criteria used in

making the award(s) be based on past academic

excellence or future academic promise.



3. In the event the University of Nevada-Reno and

the Department of Philosophy determine that

objectives and purposes of the LEONARD CONFER-

ENCE IN PHILOSOPHY can no longer be met, it is

our intent that the whole amount of the income

generated annually by this fund be devoted to

the purposes outlined in two (2) above. If

such circumstance occurs, it is our further

intent that the Department of Philosophy par-

ticipate equally with the Departments of Eng-

lish and Physics in determining which program

or programs are to be supported.



In establishing this fund in support of the Univer-

sity of Nevada-Reno and its students, it is our

desire that this fund be known as the "GUY L.

LEONARD MEMORIAL FUND".



(3) Nine separate gifts from the Speidel Newspaper

Charitable Foundation, at the request of the fol-

lowing contributors:



Mr. Charles H. Stout, $20,000 for a Journalism

Scholarship

Mr. and Mrs. Roger Christensen, $165 to the Depart-

ment of Journalism

Mr. Joseph R. Jackson, $2,000 to the Department of

Journalism

Mr. Paul A. Leonard, $1,000 to the Department of

Journalism

Mr. Dean C. Smith, $240.90 to the Department of

Journalism

Mr. John Brackett, $6,167.43 to the Einstoss

Memorial Fund

Mr. Warren L. Lerude, $34.65 to the Einstoss

Memorial Fund

Mr. Clarence K. Jones, $11,425.85 to the Electrical

Engineering Department

Mr. and Mrs. F. Clinton Howard, $1,377.20 to the

Howard Family Endowment Fund



(4) Fleischmann grants as follows: $180,000 to NNCC;

$375,000 to TMCC; $450,000 to CCCC; $296,000 to

WNCC; and $550,000 to the University Press.



(5) $500,000 from Mr. Claude Howard to Phase V of the

School of Medicine.



The additional gifts were added to the previous motion which

then carried unanimously.



2. Report of Finance Committee



Mr. Mc Bride presented the following report from the Finance

Committee meeting the previous day:



The Committee refers the following requests for action to

the Board of Regents:



(1) Approval of an increase in the per-credit fee for UNR

from $23 to $24, effective Fall, 1980, with the pro-

ceeds of that increase to be distributed to the Student

Health Services, the Student Union Operating and Reno-

vation, and to a Tutortial Program. This increase is

recommended without prejudice to the study currently

underway. The distribution of this $1 increase among

the programs identified is reflected in Attachment A.



(2) Approval of the 1980-81 Financial Plan for DRI, as

reflected in Attachment B.



The Committee also:



(1) Received a report from Chancellor Baepler concerning a

meeting of the Community College Presidents and Faculty

Senate Chairpersons on May 15, and the agreement reach-

ed by that group on the procedure to be followed in re-

solving the problem of salary inequities identified in

a previous meeting by President Berg.



(2) Received a report from Kafoury, Armstrong, Turner and

Company concerning the expanded audit of six revenue

producing activities which the Board had requested at a

previous meeting, with the understanding that a further

report would be filed at a subsequent meeting.



(3) Discussed the policy of the Board which calls for a

five year rotation of independent audit firms with the

understanding that there would be further discussion

concerning this matter before a recommendation is made

to the Board and prior to the time that proposals for

the next audit cycle are solicited.



(4) Discussed with ASUN and CSUN Presidents a proposal

pending before the Committee for a change in the

internal distribution of the per-credit fee. This

matter will be further discussed at a subsequent meet-

ing, at which time alternatives will be presented and

considered.



(5) Received a report on the status of the Biennial Budget

preparation.



In view of the fact that a number of these matters will be

under continued discussion over the next several months, an

expanded minutes record will be prepared and distributed to

all Regents and Officers.



Attachments A and B referred to above are filed with

permanent minutes.



Mrs. Knudtsen moved acceptance of the report of the Finance

Committee and approval of the two action items included with

the report. Motion seconded by Dr. Lombardi, carried with-

out dissent.



3. Report of Investment Committee



Dr. Lombardi presented the following report from the

Investment Advisory Committee meeting held earlier today:



The Committee took the following actions:



1. Received recommendations from Mr. Bob Lee of FNB for the

following sales and purchases, noting that the proposed

sales from the main endowment pool, amounting to some $2

million, are being made in order to transfer liquid as-

sets to Valley Bank to comply with the Board's earlier

instructions that the endowment funds held by FNB for

the benefit of UNLV were to be transferred to Valley

Bank as of June 30:



Approx.

Units Security Price



Sales



7,000 Standard Brands, Inc. 31 1/2

4,500 American Can Co. 33 1/8

34 Ina Corp. 35 1/8

8,000 Standard Oil of Ind. 57

8 Texaco 37 1/8

5,000 Pacific Gas & Electric Co. 24 1/8

50M Consolidated Edison Co. N. Y. Inc. 1st

& Ref. Mtg. 4.375% due 10/1/92 55

30M Consumers Power Co., 7.625% due 6/1/99 68

22M General Tel. & Electric Corp. Deb.,

9.75% due 8/15/95 90

100M General Tel. Co. Calif. 1st Mtg.

Ser. X, 7.625% due 12/1/01 70

100M General Tel Co. Wis. 1st Mtg., 7.50%

due 3/1/02 68

20M Hawaiian Elec. Co. 1st Mtg., 8.35%

due 12/1/03 70

25M Aluminum Co. of America, 9%

due 5/15/95 90

25M Aluminum Co. of Canada Ltd., 9.50%

due 3/1/95 86

200M Providence of Ontario Debs., 8.875%

due 3/1/05 85

100M Safeway Stores Inc. S.F. Debs., 7.40%

due 4/1/97 70

23M Westinghouse Elec. Corp. Deb., 8.625%

due 9/1/95 84

100M Alabama Power 1st Mtg., 8.50%

due 7/1/01 72

88M Houston Nat'1 Gas Corp., 9.75% 84

due 2/1/95 72

100M Indianapolis Pwr. & Lt., 7.125%,

due 5/1/98 70

50M Massachusetts Elec. Co. 1st Mtg., 4.375%

due 9/1/92 55

200M Michigan Bell Tel., 7% due 11/1/12 72

100M Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Debs., 7.375%

due 11/11/11 76

50M Southern New England Tel. Co. Deb., 7.75%

due 6/1/2004 76

100M Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. Deb., 5.875%

due 6/1/2003 60

50M Virginia Electric & Pwr. Co. 1st & Ref.,

7.75% due 6/1/99 70

50M West Penn. Pwr. Co. 1st Mtg., 7.875%

due 7/1/1999 77

400 So. Calif. Edison So. Pfd., 5.80% 13



Sales from the Engel Unitrust



40M U. S. Treas. Bonds., 9 1/8 due 5/15/09 93



Purchases from the Engel Unitrust



25M Santa Fe Intl., 7 1/2 of 6/15/05

conv. sub deb. par

10M Shearson Loeb Rhoades conv. bonds,

9.0% due 2/2005 103



Purchases from the Mc Coskey Endowment



10M Shearson Loeb Rhoades conv. bonds,

9.0% due 2/2005 103

25M Santa Fe Intl., 7 1/2 due 6/15/05,

conv. sub deb par



2. Received a report from Mr. Lew Shuman of American

Investors concerning $200,000 invested with that com-

pany for the benefit of the Mamie Kleberg Chair in

Historic Preservation. Mr. Shuman reported that the

loan in which the $200,000 had been invested has now

been repaid, and he recommended reinvestment in two

second deeds of trust (details of which are filed with

permanent minutes) totalling $202,000, with American

Investors participating in buying the $2,000 overage.



The Committee recommends that the Board approve the trans-

actions as presented.



Dr. Lombardi moved approval. Motion seconded by Mrs.

Whitley, carried without dissent.



4. Computing Center Study



Chancellor Baepler recalled that in September, 1979 the

Board approved a recommendation by the Officers that con-

sultants be retained for a study of the UNS Computing

Center, with the study to consist of a complete analysis

of the capability of the hardware, programs and staff of

the Center as it relates to the University.



He further recalled that in December, the Board selected the

firm of Arthur D. Little, Inc., to do the study and provided

funds for this purpose from the Board of Regents Special

Projects Account.



Dr. Baepler reported that the study has been completed and

copies had been provided to members of the Board. He intro-

duced Mr. Gary Lion from Arthur D. Little, who commented on

the findings and conclusions of the study, which was con-

ducted with the objective of setting the direction for Sys-

tem-wide computing for the next decade. One of the key

issues was to determine how resources should be organized;

i. e., people, equipment, funding, and what the computers

should look like; also, how the resources should be planned,

allocated equitably to all the potential users of the Uni-

versity, and how this should be controlled from both the

management's and user's point of view.



Based on the information gathered through interviews, ques-

tionnaires directed toward current users of the Computer

Center, and surveys of other State University Systems, ADL

prepared a preliminary report which was then presented to

various groups in an effort to determine the strategic im-

plications of the direction which appeared to be evolving.

Mr. Lion emphasized that the intent of the strategy formu-

lation meeting was to get a broad cross-section and repre-

sentative group to discuss the issues. A consensus devel-

oped as a result and the consulting team did some addi-

tional planning, concluding with a final report at the

end of May.



Mr. Lion reviewed the conclusions of the study:



(1) That the performance of the current Computing Center is

satisfactory, given the funding constraints under which

it has functioned for a long period.



(2) There are insufficient resources to meet the demands

placed upon the Center.



(3) The requests for services are not controlled; that is,

the services are given freely upon request, with no

allocation process to determine who should be able to

request services, and no priorities imposed on the

users.



(4) Since there is no way to allocate demand, users are

often frustrated because they cannot always get on the

computer. As a result, users frequently acquire their

own resources (i. e., minicomputers, outside services,

etc.).



(5) In terms of technological trends, the key issues seem

to be concerned with (a) distributed computers; (b)

integrated networks; and (c) office automation (word

processing). Although minicomputers are very cost ef-

fective, it is important to tie them together with some

sort of communications device to insure a sharing of

data and programs.



Mr. Lion also commented on the recommended strategy contain-

ed in the ADL report, specifically that:



(1) There should be a balance between distributed responsi-

bility and centralized control; that is, maintain Sys-

tem-wide control of (a) hardware/software acquisition;

(b) communications network; (c) application develop-

ment; (d) administration/maintenance; (e) shared com-

puter centers; and (f) funding.



Decentralization, or distribution of responsibility can

occur in the areas of (a) data entry; (b) independent

computer centers; (c) academic/research consulting;

(d) technical trouble shooting; and (e) contract

programming.



(2) Management control should be restructured, providing

for: (a) a Computer Executive Board to handle policy

and resource allocation; (b) a Technical Subcommittee

to the Computer Executive Board to review hardware/

software acquisition; and (c) a third group to meet

periodically to provide a communication channel from

the users to the Executive Board.



(3) That resources be budgeted and accounted for by estab-

lishing a "soft charge back system". That is, that an

annual budget process be established to determine how

many dollars in service might be provided to different

user groups, requiring such groups to develop justifi-

cation for the allocation of resources for their pur-

poses, and to assist the Computing Center in justify-

ing its budget through a resource accounting system.



(4) That a hardware network system be established that

would provide one or two large central computers con-

necting with minicomputers. This would allow for up-

grading of mainframes, off-load timesharing to mini-

computers, the use of minicomputers for remote ter-

minals.



(5) That user-purchased hardware be incorporated by estab-

lishing a "computer-store" catalog, including office

automation or word processing equipment allowing the

Center to provide the communications necessary to

coordinate the technical support.



Mr. Lion projected the costs to be minimal, suggesting less

than 1/2% of the current UNSCC budget. The key benefits

identified would be (a) that the resources will be allocated

equitably and can be justified to a greater extent; (b) ad-

vantages of an integrated network and the opportunity for

management information, software and application sharing,

data sharing, and electronic mail; (c) the availability of a

large "number cruncher" for research purposes; (d) economies

of scale; and (e) improved user control, responsiveness and

communications.



Following Mr. Lion's presentation, Chancellor Baepler recom-

mended that the report be accepted, after which he stated

that he would meet with the Presidents and with Mr. Niels

Anderson, Director of the Computing Center, to begin to ex-

plore the committee structure proposed and ways in which to

implement the recommendations contained in the report.



At Mrs. Knudtsen's request, Mr. Anderson commented on the

report, noting that the survey had revealed that the users

are generally supportive of the services provided by the

Computing Center, which he added he greatly appreciated,

and pointing out that many of the recommendations contained

in the report had been identified previously and, although

the Board of Regents had been supportive in the Center's

efforts to seek funding from the Legislature to implement

these suggestions, requests had not been funded sufficiently

to allow the Center to move as rapidly in that direction as

was desirable.



Mr. Anderson reported that the Data Processing Policy and

Planning Board has reviewed the ADL report and it is the

position of that Board that the report confirms the correct-

ness of the direction in which the Board is attempting to

move, while at the same time offering new ideas. Mr.

Anderson stated that while the Data Processing Policy and

Planning Board believes the suggestion of a Users Advisory

Board is worthwhile, they would like to study the concept

further to explore ways of implementing that objective. He

also commented on the suggestion of a resource accounting

system, noting that the concern of the Data Processing

Policy and Planning Board is that implementation of such a

system should, in no way, inhibit the users from use of the

computer. Insofar as the proposal for centralized budget-

ing, Mr. Anderson reported that the Board believes that each

institution should have the option to budget for its

computing needs.



Mr. Buchanan moved that the report be accepted. Motion

seconded by Mr. Mc Bride.



In response to Dr. Crowley's inquiry, it was agreed that

acceptance of the report does not indicate approval of any

specific recommendation contained in the report.



Motion carried without dissent.



5. Request for Special Projects Funds



Chancellor Baepler recalled that in May, 1979 the Board of

Regents approved the initiation at UNR of an advanced com-

puter-assisted registration system, with the understanding

that should it prove effective, the program would be con-

sidered for implementation at UNLV. The Board provided

$20,000 to fund the start-up costs, with UNR providing a

classified position in Admissions and Records needed to

support the program. A third item requiring funding was

an Optical Character Reader, which was requested but not

funded by the 1979 Legislature. It was anticipated that,

in the event this equipment was not funded by the Legis-

lature, it would be possible to tie in with Washoe County

equipment for a limited period of time. Because of the

very tight turnaround dictated by the registration process,

this tie in has not proven to be practical.



UNR has now requested the Computing Center to proceed with

the purchase of an Optical Recognition Reader to be used

initially to process input data relative to student admis-

sions, registration and accounting applications. The

equipment is required to allow the Center to implement the

computerized student scheduling application now under

development.



Chancellor Baepler noted that the funds required for this

purchase are not available within the Center's budget, and

requested an allocation of $92,500 from the Board of Regents

Special Projects Account.



Mr. Ross moved approval. Motion seconded by Mrs. Knudtsen,

carried without dissent.



6. Approval of Purchase



Chancellor Baepler reported that bids have been received for

the purchase by TMCC of a minicomputer with the following

results:



Data General Corporation (DG) - $29,851

Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) - 33,580

IBM (bid unacceptable)



Dr. Baepler reported that the capabilities of the DG and DEC

computers are generally comparable; however, the bid of

Digital Equipment Company was recommended over the lower bid

of Data General for the following reasons:



(1) The existence of other DEC equipment in the System pro-

vides personnel knowledgeable on software maintenance

and operation. If DG equipment is selected, an addi-

tional $2,600 will be required for training of person-

nel.



(2) Additional funds will be required after the first year

for software maintenance of system and language prod-

ucts from DG, whereas the DEC software can be main-

tained by Computer Center personnel.



(3) User-developed software is available for nominal dis-

tribution charges through DECUS, a very large DEC

equipment user.



(4) Cache memory availability can greatly improve expansion

capabilities and is not available on the DG equipment.



Chancellor Baepler recommended approval of the purchase.

President Eardley noted that this purchase is possible

through Vocational Educational funds.



Mr. Buchanan moved approval. Motion seconded by Dr.

Lombardi, carried without dissent.



The meeting adjourned for lunch and reconvened at 1:30 P.M.



7. Request for Adjustment in 1980-81 Salary



President Murino requested that the 1980-81 salary previ-

ously approved for Dr. F. Winterberg at $38,000, be further

adjusted to $40,750, thereby providing Dr. Winterberg with

an increase over 1979-80 of $4,150, or 11%. Dr. Murino

noted that, if approved, this salary adjustment will give

Dr. Winterberg the same percentage increase over the 1979-

81 biennium as the average given other Rank IV personnel

within DRI.



Mr. Buchanan moved approval. Motion seconded by Mrs.

Whitley, carried without dissent.



8. Final Drawings, Fallon Campus, WNCC



Mr. Harry Wood, System Architect, recalled that this project

has a total development budget of $851,000 of which $674,300

is for construction and $55,390 for furnishings and equip-

ment. A bid date of August 7 has been established.



President Davis introduced Mr. Maurice Nespor, project arch-

itect, and following presentation of the final drawings by

Mr. Nespor, President Davis recommended approval by the

Board.



Dr. Lombardi moved approval. Motion seconded by Mrs. Ross,

carried without dissent.



9. Request for Funding for Administrative Study, UNLV



President Goodall recalled that the Board had previously

allocated $5,000 each to UNR and TMCC for administrative

studies, with the understanding that when the UNLV accredi-

dation study was completed, a similar request would be

forthcoming from that institution.



President Goodall noted that the accreditation review is

complete and requested $5,000 from the Board of Regents

Special Projects Account to undertake the study. He further

noted that the vacancy in the position of Vice President for

Educational Services makes a study even more timely and pro-

posed that one aspect of the study will concentrate on the

functions and organization of educational services.



Chancellor Baepler recommended approval of the allocation of

$5,000 as requested.



Mr. Mc Bride moved approval. Motion seconded by Mr.

Buchanan, carried without dissent.



10. New Program Budget Request, UNLV



President Goodall presented a proposal for an interdisci-

plinary program leading to a Master of Science in Water

Resources Management, to be initiated at UNLV in Fall, 1981,

noting that implementation of the program is contingent upon

review and approval as it proceeds through the normal facul-

ty approval channels and appropriation of the necessary

funding by the 1981 Legislature. He further noted that ap-

proval of this program is requested on the basis of the un-

derstanding that, prior to implementation, representatives

from UNR, UNLV and DRI will work out a total system approach

to this and the related program at UNR. This approach will

insure that the limited available resources for these pro-

grams will be utilized equitably on the basis of System-wide

and State-wide needs.



President Goodall suggested that this would probably be

UNLV's highest priority for new program funding for the

coming biennium, depending on whether any recommendation

is made by the Law School Committee.



Chancellor Baepler recommended that this new program request

be submitted to the 1981 Legislature for funding.



Mr. Buchanan moved approval. Motion seconded by Dr.

Lombardi, carried without dissent.



11. Request for Fraternity Row Leases, UNLV



President Goodall reported that requests have been received

from Alpha Tau Omega and Kappa Sigma for leases of land in

the area designated for fraternity and sorority houses on

the UNLV Campus. He recommended that the requests be ap-

proved under the same conditions approved at a previous

meeting; that is, that the University retain the right of

architectural agreement before final approval is given.

Chancellor Baepler concurred.



Mr. Mc Bride moved approval. Motion seconded by Mrs.

Whitley, carried without dissent.



12. Proposed Sale of University Property



President Goodall recalled that UNLV owns an undivided one-

half interest in 40 acres of land located north of Nellis

Air Force Base. Approximately one year ago, the Board au-

thorized the offering of this land at its appraised value of

$80,000, with proceeds to go to the Performing Arts Center.

No bids were received.



Dr. Goodall reported that Clark County Land Corporation has

now offered to purchase this land at its current appraised

value of $90,000, under the following conditions:



(1) $20,000 down to be paid in cash at the close of escrow;



(2) The balance of the purchase price would be paid in five

yearly installments, with an annual interest rate of

10%.



President Goodall recommended acceptance of this offer, with

payment of a 5% real estate commission to Murray Herman of

Wagner Realty, Inc. Chancellor Baepler concurred, noting

that approval of the Governor is also required.



Mr. Mc Bride moved approval. Motion seconded by Dr.

Lombardi, carried with Mr. Buchanan abstaining, explaining

that Mr. Herman of Wagner Realty, Inc. is a client of his.



13. Environmental Protection Agency Grant, UNLV



President Goodall reported that the UNLV Department of

Biological Sciences has received tentative approval of a

grant from the Environmental Protection Agency that would

include receipt of indirect cost payments of about $270,000

over two years. In order to proceed with the project, Dr.

Goodall stated that it would be necessary to construct a

small Butler-type building on Campus at a cost not to exceed

$65,000. He recommended that the first $65,000 of indirect

cost funds from the contract be excluded from the normal

distribution of such revenue and be used to fund the build-

ing, and that the Regents approve a loan of up to $65,000

from the UNLV Capital Improvement Fee Fund to allow the con-

struction to proceed immediately. The loan would be repaid

from indirect cost revenue as it becomes available, and re-

payment would be completed by late Spring of 1981.



Chancellor Baepler noted that indirect cost recovery funds

received by the University are presently allocated one-half

to the general fund, with the remaining one-half distribut-

ed internally with a portion going to the institution and

a portion going to the component within the institution gen-

erating the revenue. He recommended that the policy on dis-

tribution of indirect cost recovery be changed and that for

those areas receiving no State support and which operate ex-

clusively from grants and contracts (for example, the UNLV

archaeological Survey, the UNLV Limnological Research Sta-

tion and the UNR Minerals Institute), indirect cost recovery

be distributed 25% to the general fund, 25% to the research

component generating the funds, and the remaining 50% to

continue to be distributed internally in accordance with

the current policy in effect at each institution.



Mr. Buchanan moved approval. Motion seconded by Mrs.

Whitley, carried without dissent.



14. Administrative Appointments at CCCC



President Eaton recommended the appointment of Dr. Jerry W.

Young as Dean of Educational Services, effective July 1,

1980, at a salary of $35,000, and the appointment of Dr. W.

Keith Evans as Dean of College Services, also effective July

1, 1980, at a salary of $35,000. Copies of Dr. Young's and

Dr. Evans' vitas were distributed and are filed with perman-

ent minutes.



Mr. Mc Bride moved approval. Motion seconded by Mr.

Buchanan, carried without dissent.



15. Proposed Associate of General Studies Degree: Telecourse



President Eaton reported that CCCC, in cooperation with

Coastline Community College District and Nellis Air Force

Base, has developed a degree program whereby personnel at

Nellis may earn 60 credits for the Associate of General

Studies degree by means of instructional telecourses. This

will require the purchase of 20 telecourses over a two-year

period to serve a minimum student population of 200. Indi-

viduals will earn their credits by means of attendance at

the Air Force Base Education Center where a telecourse lab-

oratory will be set up. Text books and examinations will

be provided, and the program will be supervised by an on-

base coordinator.



In order that the program may be initiated by September 1,

1980, President Eaton requested an allocation of $15,000

from the Board of Regents Special Projects Account to cover

the cost of the initial five courses needed for the program,

telecourse duplication, and necessary staff coordination.

In addition, she requested approval of a special course fee

of $60 per credit hour for the telecourse program, noting

that this fee will allow the program to become self-sustain-

ing at its minimum expected enrollment of 200 students.

75% of this per-credit hour fee is to be subsidized by the

government for all Air Force Base personnel enrolled in the

program. Chancellor Baepler recommended approval, noting

that the special fee should accrue to a separate account to

underwrite the cost of the course and materials and should

not be counted as part of the general fund.



Mrs. Whitley moved approval. Motion seconded by Mr. Mc

Bride, carried without dissent.



16. Bid Opening, Henderson Campus



President Eaton reported that bids were opened June 24, 1980

for construction of the Henderson Campus of CCCC with the

following bids received:



Alternates

Base Bid A B C D E Total



Universal Construction Company

1,099,140 4,360 42,794 22,797 20,670 24,764 1,214,525



Sletten Construction Company

1,240,400 9,500 44,900 7,900 24,500 12,400 1,339,600



Blanchard Construction Company

1,252,000 10,000 39,000 6,500 35,000 9,800 1,352,300



Zuni Construction Company

1,281,000 4,900 45,980 6,600 24,500 16,690 1,379,670



Steelwood Construction Company

1,282,000 4,500 44,635 7,920 24,577 20,287 1,383,919



Cook & Kerzetski Construction Company

1,304,624 3,000 45,435 9,200 24,750 14,564 1,401,573



J. E. Yoxen Construction Company

1,327,960 19,000 47,000 7,700 24,000 16,200 1,441,860



Alt A - Install six (6) welding booths and welder supports.

Alt B - Install greenhouse, 110 L. F. of concrete sidewalk

and water and electric lines.

Alt C - Install resilient sheet flooring and butt-to-base

in lieu of resilient tile flooring (Rooms 25, 33).

Alt D - Install landscaping and irrigation system.

Alt E - Install formed concrete curbs and three (3) 6'0"

wide x 12'0" long concrete sidewalks.





All bids, including the five additive alternates, were with-

in the authorized funds for construction. The apparent low

bidder, with a total bid of $1,214,525, is Smith Universal

Construction Company; however, because of an apparent error

in calculation, Smith Universal has asked the State Public

Works Board to delay the contract award for a few days to

allow them to consider whether to accept the contract for

the stated amount, or to withdraw their bid and forfeit the

5% bid security in the amount of $55,000.



Once the low bidder has reached a decision, the State Public

Works Board will follow one of two available options:



(1) Award the contract to Smith Universal for $1,214,525.



(2) Assess liquidated damages against Smith Universal in

the amount of the bid security ($55,000) and award the

contract to the second lowest bidder, Sletten Construc-

tion Company, in the amount of $1,339,600.



President Eaton recommended that the Board of Regents agree

to concur with the State Public Works Board's ultimate

recommendation in the award of this bid.



Mr. Mc Bride moved approval. Motion seconded by Dr.

Lombardi, carried without dissent.



17. Bid Opening, Reroofing of Sage Building, DRI



Chancellor Baepler asked that the Board consider an addi-

tional bid opening which had occurred on June 26, 1980, and

recalled that in February, 1980 bids were opened for the

reroofing of the Sage building, DRI. However, all bids re-

ceived at that time were in excess of the funds available.

The project was readvertised with the following bids re-

ceived:



L and L Roofing $ 76,587

Alpine Roofing 84,261

Van Dyne and Sons 87,900

D and D Contractors 89,700

Enterprise Roofing 119,593

Yancy Roofing 135,317



The construction budget is $88,000 and the State Public

Works Board has recommended award of a contract to L and L

Roofing in the amount of $76,587. Chancellor Baepler recom-

mended that the Board of Regents concur in this award.



Mr. Ross moved approval. Motion seconded by Mr. Mc Bride,

carried without dissent.



18. Request for Funding for LPN Program, NNCC



President Berg reported that NNCC has been asked by repre-

sentatives of White Pine County to offer a Practical Nursing

Program in Ely during the coming year to meet a critical

shortage. The College has, in turn, requested permission

of the State Board of Nursing to administer such a Program

for 10-15 students. The Program would begin in September

and would parallel the one offered on Campus in Elko. It

is planned to offer this program one year only to meet an

identified need.



President Berg noted that the program is estimated to cost

$36,946, half of which CETA has agreed to fund, provided

that half of the students will be CETA-sponsored. The State

Department of Education was approached for vocational funds

for the balance but none are available.



President Berg requested an allocation of $18,500 from the

Board of Regents Special Projects Account to provide half

the funding required for this LPN program for 1980-81.

Chancellor Baepler recommended approval.



Dr. Lombardi moved approval. Motion seconded by Mrs.

Whitley, carried without dissent.



19. Phase II Program Proposal - Diesel Mechanics, NNCC



President Berg recalled that at the May 9 meeting, the Board

approved a Phase I proposal for a one-year certified pro-

gram in Diesel Mechanics to be offered by NNCC, and author-

ized the planning for this program to proceed to Phase II.

Accordingly, a Phase II proposal was developed and included

with the agenda (identified as Ref. C and filed in the

the Chancellor's Office).



President Berg requested approval to include this program

in the 1981-1983 Biennial Budget Request for funding.

Chancellor Baepler concurred.



Mr. Buchanan moved approval. Motion seconded by Mr. Ross,

carried without dissent.



20. Administrative Reorganization, UNR



President Crowley recalled that copies of an Administrative

Reorganization Study had been distributed to the Board pre-

viously, with the understanding that recommendations for

implementation of several organizational changes, to be

effective July 1, 1980, would be presented at this meeting.

accordingly, he recommended the following reorganization

intended to both reduce the number of offices reporting

directly to the President and to realign functions in a

more coherent manner under the Vice Presidents:



(1) President's Office



a) To establish the position of Assistant to the

President on a half-time basis. Responsibilities

of this position would include data gathering and

report writing, committee liaison, tracking and

expediting decisions, briefing the President, and

handling special projects. The position was rec-

ommended as a full-time position but is proposed

at this point as a half-time with possible subse-

quent expansion to a full-time level. It is to

be established by combining existing, vacant,

fractional FTE positions into a .50 FTE.



b) To reassign the following functions to the Vice

Presidents, as described in detail below: News

Bureau, Affirmative Action Office, Institutional

Planning and Budget, Admissions and Records and

the Office of Alumni and University Relations.

This reassignment would leave the three Presidents,

the Dean of Students and the Director of Inter-

collegiate Athletics reporting directly to the

President.



(2) Vice President for Academic Affairs



a) To assume responsibility for the Office of Admis-

sions and Records. This office was formerly

assigned to the Academic Vice President.



b) To assume responsibility for a combined Office

of Affirmative Action and Academic Records.

Previously, academic records have been the re-

sponsibility of Institutional Planning and Budget.

With the proposed reorganization of the latter of-

fice, described below, the records-keeping func-

tion would be reassigned to the Affirmative Action

Office. As the Affirmative Action Officer works

closely with academic records, a combined office

would consolidate two related functions.



c) To assume responsibility for the Office of Insti-

tutional Studies. Institutional studies have here-

tofore been the responsibility of the Office of

Institutional Planning and Budget but, because the

budget function and academic records have also

been assigned to that office, little time has been

available to give proper attention to this respon-

sibility. With the proposed transfer of academic

records to the Affirmative Action Office and of

the budget function to the Vice President for

Business, institutional studies can receive the

full time responsibility they require. The estab-

lishment of this Office would not necessitate the

addition of new staff, since the Director of Insti-

tutional Studies will occupy the position previous-

ly held by the Director of Institutional Planning

and Budget.



(3) Vice President for Business



As noted above, to transfer the budget function to this

Office from the Office of Institutional Planning and

Budget. The Director of the latter Office has been

recommended to the Board for appointment as Vice Presi-

dent for Business and, assuming approval of that recom-

mendation, it is appropriate to transfer the budget

function, which has been his major responsibility.



(4) Vice President for Public Affairs



The basic recommendation is to expand the responsibil-

ities of, and assign an appropriately changed title to,

what has previously been the Vice President for Uni-

versity Services. The changes proposed would consoli-

date much of the University's outreach effort and re-

shape the University Services Vice Presidency into an

Office with prime responsibility for external programs.

The specific changes recommended are:



a) To alter the Office of Alumni and University

Relations as currently constituted by transferring

its functions (Alumni Relations, School Relations,

Development, Publications and Public Occasions) to

the Vice President for Public Affairs.



b) To assign the News Bureau to this Vice President

and combine it with the Speaker's Bureau and Pub-

lications into an Office of Information. The

result would be a coherent grouping of related

functions, with a view towards possible consoli-

dation of several news and information publica-

tions currently produced in different Departments

of the University.



c) To transfer the motion picture services function

from Vice President for University Services to the

Office of Communications and Broadcasting. This

transfer would relieve the Vice President of one

responsibility and relocate the motion picture

services to an Office whose function is closely

related.



Organization charts reflecting the present and the proposed

structures were included with the agenda (identified as Ref.

D and filed with permanent minutes).



Mr. Ross moved approval. Motion seconded by Dr. Lombardi,

carried without dissent.



21. Appointments of Assistant to the President and Vice

President for Business



President Crowley recommended the appointment of Dr. John P.

Marschall as Assistant to the President, effective July 1,

1980, at .50 FTE, with a continuing .50 FTE appointment as

Associate Professor in the Department of History. Dr.

Marschall's salary as Assistant to the President was recom-

mended as $15,001, which is one-half of his total salary

established for 1980-81. A copy of Dr. Marschall's vita

was included with the agenda (identified as Ref. E and filed

with permanent minutes).



President Crowley also recommended appointment of K. Donald

Jessup as Vice President for Business, effective July 1,

1980, at an annual salary of $45,550. Copy of Mr. Jessup's

vita was included with the agenda (identified as Ref. F and

filed with permanent minutes). President Crowley also

recommended that, effective with the appointment as Vice

President, Mr. Jessup be assigned signature authority on

University checks and on all existing bank accounts.

additional signature authority on bank accounts to be

assigned to Mr. Dan Pease, appointed Controller of UNR,

effective July 1, 1980.



Mr. Buchanan asked for a report from the Affirmative Action

Officer concerning the procedure followed in recruiting for

these two positions, specifically asking if there were any

violations of the Board's regulations on affirmative action.



Mr. Harry Wolf, Affirmative Action Officer for UNR, explain-

ed the procedure which had been followed and stated that, in

his opinion, the procedure conformed with the Affirmative

Action regulations and he was confident that there had been

no violations.



Mrs. Knudtsen expressed concern about the release of infor-

mation concerning such appointments prior to action by the

Board. She further suggested that appointments of this kind

should be left to the respective President to make, and rec-

ommended that this be addressed in the Code revision which

is underway.



Mr. Mc Bride moved approval of the appointments as recom-

mended. Motion seconded by Dr. Lombardi, carried without

dissent.



22. Proposed Merger of Department of Health Science and Social

Services and Corrections, UNR



President Crowley recommended the merger of the Departments

pf Health Sciences and Social Services and Corrections, ef-

fective July 1, 1980, with the resulting new Department to

be a component of the College of Arts and Science and to be

called the Department of Social and Health Services.



Dr. Crowley noted that the Department of Social Services

and Corrections is currently part of the College of Arts and

Science, while the Department of Health Science has been

part of the Allied Health area previously administered by

the School of Medicine but standing alone for the past year.

The Health Sciences were a major foundation for the original

Medical School but could not be readily incorporated into

the 4-year program. Dr. Crowley stated this merger will

bring together two Departments with complementary interests,

missions and philosophies and would reduce duplication of

courses and streamline administrative responsibilities. As

part of the merger arrangements, the corrections curriculum

of Social Services and Corrections would be transferred to

the Department of Criminal Justice.



Mrs. Knudtsen moved approval. Motion seconded by Dr.

Lombardi, carried without dissent.



23. Request for Loan from Board of Regents Special Projects

Account



President Crowley recalled that at the May 9 meeting,

the Board had approved a recommendation to authorize

whatever portion of the Hughes payment might be available up

to $200,000, for remodeling costs of the School of Medicine.

The remodeling project is intended to transform space vacat-

ed by the Audio Visual Department into offices and labora-

tories. The funding was to be reimbursed to the Hughes

account from the anticipated $250,000 to be derived from the

Scarlett Estate.



Dr. Crowley reported that since the May meeting, the Hughes

money has had to be reverted to the State. However, a

$100,000 payment from the Scarlett Estate is expected to be

received prior to the end of the month and will be used for

the remodeling project. He requested an additional $100,000

be provided by a loan from the Board of Regents Special

Projects Account, to be repaid when the additional proceeds

from the Scarlett Estate become available in late Fall.

Chancellor Baepler concurred.



Dr. Lombardi moved approval. Motion seconded by Mrs.

Whitley.



Mr. Buchanan suggested that this be deferred until consider-

ation of the proposed move of the Medical School.



President Crowley explained that the remodeling which is

proposed will in no way make the building unusable for other

instructional purposes.



Motion carried without dissent.



24. Proposals for Naming of University Facilities



President Crowley submitted, with his endorsement, the

following recommendations from the UNR faculty:



(1) That the Physical Assessment Laboratory in the Orvis

School of Nursing be named in honor of Dean Vera Brand,

who is retiring this year after six years of merito-

rious service in the Deanship.



(2) That one of the two gymnasiums in the Lombardi Recrea-

tion building be named in honor of the late Dr. Ruth I.

Russell, who spent 39 years with the Department of

Recreation and Physical Education.



Dr. Lombardi moved approval. Motion seconded by Mrs.

Knudtsen, carried without dissent.



25. Bid Opening, College of Business Administration Building,

UNR



President Crowley reported that bids were opened June 3,

1980, for the College of Business Administration building,

UNR, with the following results:





Alternates

Base Bid A B C D Total Bid



Walker Boudwin Construction Company

6,177,000 18,659 52,365 87,311 533,888 6,869,223



Robert Fischer Construction Company

6,639,000 18,400 46,400 99,000 615,000 7,417,800



Del Webb Construction Company

6,684,000 18,500 62,100 100,000 673,000 7,537,600



Mc Kenzie Construction Company

6,788,000 18,500 54,000 91,000 614,000 7,565,500



Vasko Construction Company

6,821,000 18,113 49,434 90,019 614,300 7,592,866



Alt A - Audio/Visual and computer remote terminal cables

and devices and building and sound console.

Alt B - Precast concrete parapet on roof.

Alt C - Elevator #2.

Alt D - Auditorium and various other rooms.



The construction budget for this project is $7,122,000. The

State Public Works Board recommends award of a contract to

Walker Boudwin Construction Company for the base bid plus

all alternates for a total contract of $6,869,223.



President Crowley requested concurrence by the Board of

Regents in the bid award recommended by the State Public

Works Board.



Dr. Lombardi moved approval. Motion seconded by Mr. Mc

Bride, carried with Mr. Cashell abstaining, explaining

that Mr. Boudwin was a business partner.



26. Bid Opening, Demolition of Mechanic Arts Building, UNR



President Crowley reported that bids were opened June 19,

1980, for demolition of the Mechanic Arts building, with

the following results:



R. E. Ferretto Construction $15,809.30

T. W. Construction Co., Inc. 17,260.00

Gerhard and Berry, Inc. 17,400.00

Earl E. Games, Inc. 18,980.00



President Crowley recommended that the bid of R. E. Ferretto

be accepted.



Mr. Mc Bride moved approval. Motion seconded by Mr.

Buchanan, carried without dissent.



27. Report on the Status of Graduate Education



Chancellor Baepler recalled that in November, 1979 the Board

of Regents requested a study of graduate programs at the two

Universities. In response to that request, a report of a

UNR task force appointed to conduct a study at that institu-

tion and a report from UNLV, prepared as part of their ac-

creditation study, were distributed with the agenda.



President Crowley introduced Dr. Richard Burkhart, Chairman

of the UNR Task Force, who spoke briefly concerning findings

of the committee. Dr. Burkhart reported that UNR currently

offers the masters degree in 55 different areas and the

doctorate in 17 areas, exclusive of the School of Medicine.

He noted that approximately one out of five students at UNR

is enrolled in a graduate program.



Dr. Burkhart also commented on the benefits of graduate pro-

grams on the total educational and research efforts of the

institution, suggesting that because of their involvement in

graduate education, the character of the faculty has changed

in that they are becoming more professionally oriented. A

second benefit is the enhancement of the overall undergrad-

uate experience by the presence of graduate students inter-

acting with the undergraduate. A third benefit occurs in

the area of sponsored research, noting that in 1974-75 the

University received $1.1 million, increasing to $2.3 million

in 1979-80 in sponsored research. In addition, there has

been a number of visible products as a result of the gradu-

ate program and accompanying research: 21 books have been

published and 437 papers generated and accepted by refereed

journals.



President Goodall spoke concerning the report filed by UNLV,

noting that the graduate programs at UNLV have been initiat-

ed much more recently than those at UNR, and those programs

still tend to be more at the masters level than at the doc-

toral level. The enrollment tends more toward part-time

students, and there is a fairly strong emphasis on graduate

work in Education; however, that is shifting more into

other professional areas. Dr. Goodall suggested that UNLV

will continue to develop graduate programs in those areas

where it has a strong expertise or an ability to respond to

a particular interest. He reported that one of the recom-

mendations from the Northwest Association was that UNLV

attempt to find more ways to provide research support on

Campus for faculty and graduate students. A second, spe-

cific recommendation by the Northwest Association is that

the institution consider its current policy that allows

faculty at UNLV to enroll in its own doctoral programs.

Dr. Goodall stated that this matter will be reviewed and a

recommendation made to the Board at a subsequent meeting.



28. Request for Payment of Moving Expenses



Chancellor Baepler requested that President Murino's moving

expenses from Boulder, Colorado to Reno, in an amount not

to exceed $7,000, be paid from the Board of Regents Special

Projects Account.



Mr. Buchanan moved approval. Motion seconded by Dr.

Lombardi, carried without dissent.



29. Request for Supplemental Funds for Assistant Counsel



Chancellor Baepler reported that, effective July 1, 1980,

Mr. Lyle Rivera, System Endowment Officer and Assistant

Counsel, will be funded 1/2 by UNLV (as Endowment Officer

for that institution) and 1/2 by the System, as Assistant

Counsel. Dr. Baepler requested that the funds necessary

for salary, fringe benefits and operating costs assignable

to Mr. Rivera's function as Assistant Counsel be provided

from the Board of Regents Special Projects Account in the

following amounts:



Professional .50 FTE $19,003

Fringe Benefits 2,089

Classified .50 FTE 5,506

Fringe Benefits 905

Operating 900

$28,403



Mr. Buchanan moved approval. Motion seconded by Mrs.

Whitley, carried without dissent.



30. Proposed Acquisition of Commercial Space in Las Vegas



Chancellor Baepler recalled that at the May 9 meeting, a

request was made that the Chancellor's Office look into the

cost and feasibility of renting commercial space in Las

Vegas to provide office space for Regents who live in south-

ern Nevada. He reported that he had determined that space

was available and suggested that Mr. Mc Bride be appointed

as a committee of one to work with him to physically inspect

such areas.



Mr. Buchanan moved approval. Motion seconded by Mrs.

Whitley, carried without dissent.



31. Chancellor's Report



Chancellor Baepler asked for the Presidents' reports con-

cerning the status of their institutions' accredication.



President Davis reported that he had received a letter from

the Northwest Association and that accreditation of WNCC has

been reaffirmed by the Commission on Colleges. He noted

that the policy of the Commission provides that each insti-

tution conduct a self-study and is visited at least once

every ten years with an interim report during the fifth year

and progress reports and visits at other times as requested.

WNCC has not been asked to provide a progress report.



President Goodall reported that UNLV has also received noti-

fication of full reaffirmation of accreditation, with a

progress report to be provided in 1983. Dr. Goodall com-

mented on the general recommendations of evaluation commit-

tee, among which was a recommendation for implementation of

a more specific long-range planning evaluation process, and

a second one dealing generally with Campus development.



President Eaton reported that CCCC has received notifica-

tion of reaffirmation of accreditation and a request for a

progress report and a one-person interim visit in 1982.

There are three major areas apparently of concern on the

part of the Commission. First there was significant concern

that the funding level for the Community College was inade-

quate. Dr. Eaton further noted that the staffing parameters

under which the College is currently working, particularly

the 45-55% ratio which calls for a large number of part-time

staff members, have raised a question concerning the quality

of instruction. A third concern of the Commission is the

frequency of change at CCCC. Overall, however, she regarded

the response of the Commission as very positive.



President Eardley reported that he had received notification

that TMCC has been accredited as a separate unit of the Uni-

versity of Nevada System. A progress report has been re-

quested in 1983 and, since this is TMCC's initial accredi-

dation as an operationally separate institution, the College

will be expected to conduct a comprehensive self-study and

be visited by a full evaluation committee in 1985.



32. Report of the Chairman



Chairman Cashell commented concerning the status of Board

appointed committees and asked that the July agenda include

a written report from the Chairperson of each of the follow-

ing committees:



Code Revision

Board of Regents Bylaws Revisions (Officers)

Development of Financial Information (Finance

Committee)

Ad Hoc Committee of Regents to Develop Officer

Assessment/Evaluation Procedures

Academic Master Plan (Chancellor's Advisory Cabinet)

Intercollegiate Athletics Committee

Work Load Study Committee, UNR

Work Load Study Committee, UNLV

Committee to Review Financial Accounting Services



Mr. Cashell noted that the final report from the Law School

Study Committee was scheduled for presentation on Saturday,

and that appointment of a Chairman to replace Judge Hug on

the System Administration Study Committee would be made

shortly so that the Committee could proceed with its

assignment.



33. New Business



Mr. Buchanan asked for a report at the July meeting con-

cerning the status of UNLV's application for membership

in WAC and a report concerning NCAA and UNLV Athletics

Department.



The meeting adjourned at 2:55 P.M., and reconvened at 9:00 A.M.,

Saturday, June 28, with Chairman Cashell presiding, and with

Regents Buchanan, Knudtsen, Lombardi, Mc Bride, Ross and Whitley

present. Also present were Chancellor Baepler, Presidents Berg,

Crowley, Davis, Goodall and Murino, and Board Secretary Bonnie

Smotony.



34. Law School Study



Chairman Cashell introduced Judge William Beko, Chairman of

the Law School Study Committee, who, in turn, introduced the

following members of the Committee who were present: Ms.

Frankie Sue Del Papa, Mr. John Foley, Judge Procter Hug,

Jr., Judge Addeliar Guy, Mr. Harley Harmon, Sr., Mr. Bruce

Roberts and Mr. Richard Weisbart. Committee members Judge

Paul Goldman, Mr. John Key, and Justice Noel Manoukian were

not present.



Chairman Cashell introduced Mr. George Roen, Vice President

and Director of Cresap, Mc Cormick and Paget, Inc., the man-

agement consulting firm which had conducted the Law School

Study. Mr. Roen then introduced Dr. Eugene Smolley, the

team leader for the study, and Ms. Clayton Spencer and Mrs.

Carol Penskar, who had assisted in the study.



Dr. Smolley presented a comprehensive review of the report,

pointing out that the answer to the question of whether or

not Nevada should have a Law School was not clear cut; the

data reflects that it would be marginally cost-effective to

have a Law School, but the broader view of Nevada's devel-

opment indicates that it would be desirable.



Dr. Smolley cited the following basic facts as revealed by

the Study:



(1) In the period 1968-1978, the ABA approved Law School

enrollments went from 63,000 to 122,000.



(2) In 1978, 40,000 first year places in Law Schools were

awarded, compared to 126,000 LSAT administrations

(roughly equal to applications).



(3) There are currently 500,000 lawyers in the U. S. com-

pared with 365,000 in 1970, 286,000 in 1961 and 222,000

in 1950.



(4) Since 1954, 41 ABA approved Law Schools have been es-

tablished; there are currently none in Alaska, Rhode

Island and Nevada.



(5) In this time frame, Nevada's population has gone from

160,000 in 1950 to 767,000 currently, and it is pro-

jected to rise to 1,192,000 by 1990.



Dr. Smolley reviewed the background, objectives, scope and

methods of the study, noting that the objective of the study

was to determine the feasibility and desirability of estab-

lishing a Law School as part of the University of Nevada

System. Within that objective, the scope included determin-

ing the need for legal education and services in Nevada and

the benefits which could accrue to the State; looking for

alternatives to the establishment of a Law Scool; determin-

ing the resources and program commitments that would be

necessary to establish a Law School; the cost involved; and

the location, if a Law School were to be established.



In conducting the study, CMP worked very closely with the

Law School Study Committee appointed by the Board of Regents

and found their assistance to be of great value. Background

information, both national and Nevada-oriented, was assem-

bled; informal views on legal education and service were

evaluated through interviews, including perceptions of cur-

rent arrangements, alternatives which might exist, and bene-

fits and problems which might occur from the establishment

of a Law School.



CMP staff conducted 79 formal interviews: 9 of the 11 mem-

bers of the Law School Study Committee, 7 of the 9 Regents,

2 pre-legal advisors, 10 State Officials, 3 University

Officers, 3 Judicial College Administrators, 6 other in-

fluential Nevada citizens, 5 Chamber of Commerce Officials

and County Commissioners, 3 individuals at the American Bar

Association, 2 at the American Bar Foundation, the Associa-

tion of American Law Schools, the National Association for

Law Placement, 13 individuals at other Law Schools, 14 other

individuals including 2 from the California Bar Examiners,

continuing Education for the Bar in California, State Bar

officials from various states, and a representative of the

National Center for Educational Statistics.



In terms of student demand in Nevada, computer runs were

obtained from the Educational Testing Service indicating the

number of applicants, the number of acceptances, number of

students matriculating in Law Schools, the states in which

Nevadans attended Law School, and the GPA and LSAT score

ranges. Data from ten other western states were obtained

for comparative purposes.



To assess the supply and demand of lawyers in Nevada, infor-

mation was obtained from the State Bar files concerning

Nevada Bar admittees, where they were born and where they

attended Law School.



To analyze national trends in legal education the ABA annual

review of legal education in the U. S. was used and national

trends in lawyer placement and demand were analyzed using

National Association of Law Placement data.



Base population for law applicant pool and lawyer demand was

extracted from population data provided by the State Plan-

ning Coordinator's Office and the National Bureau of Census.



Law School Feasibility Studies from other schools were

reviewed for comparative purposes.



Dr. Smolley also reviewed the current arrangements for legal

education and research in Nevada, noting that there are 3

ways in which this is currently provided:



(1) The Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education

(WICHE) which involves 13 western states. Nevada com-

menced participation in the Student Exchange Program in

Law in 1975, and provides for 18 entering students each

year, expending $117,000 annually for this purpose.



The number of applicants for WICHE support in Law num-

bers between 40 and 91 per year. The actual cost (both

student and State cost) is higher than nonresident

tuition.



(2) Mc George, Southwestern, and Washington, D. C. Law

Schools have programs oriented towards Nevadans.



(3) Continuing Legal Education (CLE) effort is now being

addressed by the Nevada Bar.



(4) Legal research is currently carried out in four areas:

The Legislative Counsel has a staff of 12 attorneys;

the Attorney General has 42 attorneys in divisions

other than criminal and highway doing research; the

central legal staff of the Supreme Court has nine re-

search attorneys; and Law Library resources include the

Supreme Court Library with 55,000 volumes, the National

Judicial College Library with 50,000 volumes, the Clark

County Library with 40,000 volumes and the Washoe

County Library with 25,000 volumes.



A third area addressed by the Study includes an explanation

of the framework for determining Nevada's legal education

needs; that is, the parameters of the issue, student demand,

Nevada's demand for lawyers, the qualitative dimension, and

resource requirements.



First, in assessing student demand, the study addressed the

question of (1) access to legal education; (2) the afforda-

bility of that legal education; and (3) critical level of

demand.



Secondly, Nevada's demand for lawyers was assessed; that is

(1) the supply of lawyers, their number, distribution and

quality; and (2) placement prospects -- the anticipated im-

pact of economic and population changes in the State and the

impact of the national placement picture on Nevada.



The qualitative dimension relates to the benefits which may

accrue to the State, University and the legal profession as

a consequence of having a Law School.



In terms of benefits to the State, the opportunity to have a

center of intellectual activity (the Law School can serve

functions beyond the education and training of the profes-

sionals, for example, preserving and advancing the State's

legal tradition, acting as a resource for critical perspec-

tive of legislative and judicial functions, etc.).



The benefits to the University, including the obvious one of

adding a desirable dimension to the total program, would

include the opportunities for collaboration, the internal

resource which a Law School may offer for the conduct of

University affairs.



The benefits to the legal profession include an opportunity

for continuing education, teaching opportunities for lawyers

in the State, the support for law students and a meeting

ground for developing that network of contacts that assists

on carrying on the business of Law in the State.



A final category within this framework is resource

requirements:



1. Cost - Is the cost reasonable and in keeping with

the priority of establishing a Law School?



2. Support - Do the key people in the State see the

importance of this type of activity?



3. Resource Availability - Are the funds available to

support a Law School?



Dr. Smolley commented on the section of the study dealing

with assessment of Nevada's legal education needs, pointing

out that the first part of such an assessment has to do with

student demands, and that both the national and the Nevada

situations have been explored.



A review of the national situation reveals that Law School

enrollments are leveling off. The number of unfilled places

is larger than in previous years. For example, for the

period 1973-78, 33 seats were unfilled in three schools; in

1979 there were 395 seats unfilled in seven schools. The

number of Law School applicants is declining and is project-

ed to decline nationally. The LSAT administrations have

decreased from 135,000 in 1974 to 111,000 in 1979. The

1980-1995 period projects from an 8 to a 23% decrease in

the annual number of applicants during that period of time.



A review of the Nevada situation shows that Nevada ranks low

in demand for legal education but high in acceptance rate.

On this basis, the finding is that Nevadans have a reason-

able access to a legal education, in addition to the fact

that there are a large number of Law Schools within a 250

mile radius of Las Vegas and Reno.



The study shows that Nevadans pay significantly more for

their legal education than students who can attend a Law

School in their own state. The average resident tuition is

$743; the average nonresident and private tuition is $3,035.

The current State subsidy for law students is limited to the

support provided a limited number of students through the

WICHE program and has little impact in making Law Schools

more affordable. Only 18 entering students each year are

supported and they are chosen on an academic rather than a

need basis. This supports 23% of Nevadans going to Law

School; the national averages show that 24% of students

attending Law School receive financial aid.



Again, dealing with the Nevada situation, the number of

Nevada law applicants is projected to increase significant-

ty in the next 15 years. Dr. Smolley explained the several

different methods used for projecting the number of law

applicants, pointing out that all methods were somewhat

speculative because of a number of factors which could im-

pact the reliability of the projection. However, he stated

that the study indicates that in general current arrange-

ments meet the student demand for legal education, there is

no evidence of unmet needs, and the national decrease in

demand indicates that more spaces will be available in sur-

rounding schools. He emphasized that all of this does not

allow for the fact that some students may be discouraged

from applying or matriculating because of cost, but that

statistic is difficult to measure.



Dr. Smolley also commented on the findings of the study con-

cerning societal demand for lawyers, noting that nationally,

the supply of lawyers is increasing with an uncertain future

market for legal services. In Nevada, the study shows a

sufficient supply of well qualified lawyers. In terms of

distribution, the lawyers are where the population is. In

terms of quality, there is no evidence of lack of quality.



Demand for lawyers in Nevada is expected to remain strong

with societal changes indicating a greater need for lawyers.

Uncertainties stem from limitations on growth imposed by

such things as water and sewer, the proposed MX missle site

and the impact of the recession. Placement prospects for

graduates of a Nevada Law School could be tight in the

short term, uncertain in the long term.



Important in the assessment are the qualitative aspects; for

example, the benefits to the State, the University and the

profession. Although, as indicated, Nevada has substantial

resources for legal research and review, the existing struc-

ture does not provide continuity, comprehensiveness and in-

tellectual independence, since the research tends to focus

on a day-to-day operation rather than long term, the con-

cerns are directed to particular areas, and they are tied to

the special interests of their organizations. Nevada's need

for ongoing expert criticism of its legal process is likely

to grow as the State grows.



Nevada attorneys would benefit from an academic resource;

there would be more opportunities for consultation, for

specialization, and for interaction with academic lawyers,

giving practicing attorneys the opportunity for additional

perspective.



Dr. Smolley emphasized that although the student and socie-

tal demands, which are identifiable and measurable, make

only a marginal case for a Law School, there are qualita-

tive benefits that go beyond the student and society demand

issues.



In discussing the establishment of a Law School and its

characteristics, Dr. Smolley pointed out that there are

several program requirements that are critical to its suc-

cess. One is ABA accreditation. A second is to meet the

Association of American Law School guidelines. Further, he

suggested that a Nevada school should place additional re-

quirements of quality and focus; that is, it must be of high

quality and must emphasize Nevada law and training of pro-

fessional skills. A Law School should be small enough to

insure selectivity and should provide research and review of

Nevada law. The governance of a Law School should be more

independent than Departments or Colleges of a University.



A Law School should strive to enroll 85 students each Fresh-

man year, and graduate 80 of them. A Law School should de-

velop analytical and professional skills and the curriculum

should emphasize legal problems and opportunities in Nevada.

A Law School should have an excellent Dean and faculty (one

Dean, one Associate Dean, one Assistant Dean, and 13 full-

time faculty). In-state tuition should be in the range of

$550 to $1,000 annually.



Dr. Smolley went on to discuss the requirements for a law

library, noting that it should have an initial collection of

between 40,000 and 60,000 volumes, have a head librarian and

three full-time assistant librarians. A simple, but ade-

quate, Law School building was estimated at approximately

$4.5 million, with acquisition of a minimum library estimat-

ed at $1 million. In 1980 dollars, the annual operating

costs for a Law School were projected at $1,245,318, with

gross cash outlays for the preopening year and through the

first three years of operation estimated at $8,455,786.



Dr. Smolley advised that a Nevada Law School would require

on-going support from the State, and suggested that when

looking at other sources of funds in terms of operating ex-

penses, the University of Nevada, with its current support,

could not support a Law School. However, he pointed out

that the State appears to be capable of providing the finan-

cial support necessary. Uncertainties exist because of

Question 6, and whether or not the Legislature would con-

sider the Law School as worthy of support.



Construction should be completed within four years to meet

accreditation requirements.



In terms of location, a school located in Reno would have

certain institutional advantages by virtue of an affiliation

with the National Judicial College, and proximity to the

seat of State government. A school located in Las Vegas

would have advantages because of the size of the community

and its projected growth rate. Las Vegas would benefit from

a law library. Reno is closer to another Law School than

Las Vegas is, and the opportunity for private donations has

been focused in Las Vegas. The question of location, how-

ever, should be determined as part of an overall plan for

the two Campuses and in conformity with the Board's commit-

ment to two fully comprehensive Universities.



Dr. Smolley suggested that establishing a Law School would

not significantly improve the access of Nevadans to legal

education.



A State-supported Law School would, however, make legal ed-

ucation more financially feasible for the individual Nevada

student.



A Law School would not greatly affect the supply of lawyers

in Nevada since the supply is currently adequate. This

conclusion does not include an assessment of whether it is

better to have these lawyers trained in Nevada.



The opportunities for a Law School to increase the compe-

tence of the Bar is limited. There are strict standards of

admission to the Bar which has the effect of controlling the

quality.



A Law School would offer a valuable critical perspective on

legislative and judicial functions.



Without the enhancement of current programs, a Law School

would have limited impact on the quality of the University

of Nevada.



A Law School would improve continuing legal education only

if special provisions were made to accomplish this goal.



The impact of a Law School on the State would be strong; the

impact on the profession and the University would be less

certain.



Dr. Smolley commented on the alternatives available to meet

Nevada's legal education needs. One alternative would be an

expansion of State assistance that is available to Nevada

students, such as increasing the number of WICHE scholar-

ships each year; creating additional subsidies for other

students attending both WICHE and non-WICHE schools; remov-

ing support of law students from the WICHE program and es-

tablishing one comprehensive State subsidy program encom-

passing a set number of students attending Law Schools of

their choice.



A second alternative suggested in the report is the estab-

lishment of a private Law School or a branch of an existing

Law School within the State; however, Dr. Smolley suggested

that this incurs the same problems that a State Law School

would face.



A third alternative would be to establish a legal institute

as part of the University System, to serve as a study center

for Nevada law and policy. Such a structure could offer co-

ordinated externships and could be administratively super-

vised by the University.



In concluding his presentation, Dr. Smolley recalled the two

key questions which had been raised:



1. Is a Law School feasible and desirable and in what

time frame?



2. What are the alternatives to establishing a Law

School at this time?



Conclusions reached are:



(1) On the basis of traditional feasibility analysis, the

University of Nevada should not establish a Law School

at this time, for the following reasons:



a) Student opportunity for legal education is

satisfactory.



b) The demand for lawyers is such that there appears

to be a sufficient number currently, they appear to

have appropriate expertise, and it appears that

there will be an appropriate supply of lawyers in

the future.



c) The projected Law School enrollment appears

marginal to make a Law School viable.



d) The cost of establishing and maintaining a Law

School must be applied against the benefits which

would be received.



e) The issue of priority is important. Since the cost

benefit is marginal, what priority is placed on a

Law School? Interviews indicated that the interest

in a Law School is mixed. Issue is the question of

what the role of professional education is in

Nevada and how does a Law School fit in with the

overall issue of professional education in the

State.



f) There is an uncertainty about the future because of

the recession, dependence on natural resources,

etc.



(2) Dr. Smolley pointed out, however, that public policy

considerations may make establishment of a Law School

desirable, despite the results of traditional feasibil-

ity analysis. Such public policy considerations may

carry more weight than the cost effectiveness, for

such reasons as:



a) Self-sufficiency - to what extent should Nevada

generate and house its own expertise, and develop

its own capability to transmit this expertise.



b) Development of quality - by attracting high-quality

legal academicians to the State and by providing

longer term consideration of legal issues concern-

ing Nevada.



c) Benefits to State government, University and to the

legal profession must be carefully considered.



d) Short-term investment and long-term gain; that is,

benefits which accrue from a Law School require

time for establishment and growth. Is the cost

benefit such that the State is willing to invest

the capital in order to prepare for the eventuality

that a Law School may be necessary in the State in

the future.



e) Correction of specific areas of deficiency in pro-

viding educational opportunities at reasonable

cost.



Dr. Smolley suggested that of the alternatives offered, the

two most feasible appeared to be (1) the expansion of State

subsidies for legal education; and (2) establishment of a

legal institute that organizes an external program for

training in Nevada law and contributes associated research.



Dr. Smolley suggested the following four steps be taken in

carrying out the recommendations contained in the report:



(1) Adoption of the report as a basis for public debate as

to what is the validity of the qualitative arguments;



(2) Determination by the Board of Regents and the Legisla-

ture of the relative value of the qualitative benefits

versus the cost required;



(3) Determination of the Law School priority with respect

to other professional programs; and



(4) Make a decision on the recommendations by approving one

of two alternatives:



(a) Establish a Law School as part of the University

of Nevada and determine the location of that Law

School in the context of plans for developing

other professional schools.



(b) Adopt alternative course of action for meeting the

needs for providing legal education.



Following the conclusion of the presentation of the Law

School Study by the consultants, Chairman Cashell asked for

comments from the members of the Law School Committee.



Judge William Beko, presented the following comments and

recommendations of the Law School Committee, noting, how-

ever, that others on the Committee might wish to add their

own comments.



(1) Initially, the Committee commends Cresap, Mc Cormick

and Paget, Inc., for its excellent report. Every facet

of our feasibility request has been thoroughly investi-

gated and analyzed. Individual members of the Commit-

tee may not concur with some aspects of the report;

however, we unanimously agree that CMP's contractual

requirements have been satisfactorily completed.



(2) At the present time, there does not appear to be a lack

of student opportunity for Nevada residents who desire

legal education at institutions out of the State; how-

ever, those students pay substantially higher tuition

fees than residents of those states which have estab-

lished Law Schools, and those costs may be expected

to increase to the point where legal education will be

limited to those who have substantial private funds.



a) There is no known method through which it may be

accurately ascertained how many Nevada residents

are deprived of a legal education because of the

current excessive cost. The relationship between

admissions and matriculations of Nevada residents

supports the conclusions that the number of resi-

dent students denied the opportunity of a legal

education is significantly higher than most stud-

ies suggest.



(3) State financial support through subsidy requires an

immediate reevaluation. Nevada is not currently

supplying adequate financial support to its students of

graduate professional schools. Emphasis should be put

on those programs to provide an incentive to Nevada

residents to return to Nevada upon completion of their

graduate degrees.



a) Implementation of this recommendation is dependent

to an extent upon the early preparation and adop-

tion of a University Master Plan for professional

graduate schools wherein the need for programs such

as Veterinary Medicine, Dentistry, Architecture,

Law, etc. can be properly addressed, priorities and

probably locations established, and the necessary

funding appropriated by annual budget requests on

a systematic basis. This Committee is confident

that such a Master Plan will also reflect that

Nevada has largely ignored its responsibility to

graduate level professional education.



(4) Despite the conclusions of the report that Nevada does

not need a Law School at this time, a significant num-

ber of the members of the Committee feel that there

will be a need for a Law School in the future, and that

if that need is to be meet on a timely basis, immediate

steps should be undertaken to plan for the funding,

planning and designing the necessary buildings, re-

cruiting an administrative and teaching staff, and

other essential details. With legislative approval and

support a necessity, it is expected that a minimum of

two to three years would be consumed in this process if

initiated immediately. When established, the Law

School Committee recommends as follows:



a) The Law School must be a small school, but of high

quality and capable of surpassing all present

requirements for ABA approval.



b) It must be a State institution, having the strong,

active support of State administration, the

Legislature, and the Board of Regents.



c) The Committee is agreed that substantial benefits

would accrue to the State, to the University, to

the Legislature, and the Courts, as well as the

people of this State from the establishment of a

Law School.



d) It is the consensus of the Committee that the sug-

gested alternatives would not meet the needs of

this State. The overall costs of such programs

would far exceed the total tuition costs for a

greater number of students at a Law School out of

the State.



(5) It should be pointed out that Law, as a career, is no

longer as attractive to College graduates, as evidenced

by the decline in admission applications and the vacant

seats in 1st year classes at ABA approved Law Schools.

However, it is also apparent that Nevada's need for

lawyers, especially in some specialties, is expected to

continue. While the applicant pool is small at this

time, an appreciable increase is anticipated if a Law

School is established in Nevada.



Mr. John Foley stated that in his view, the Board of Regents

is now faced with the decision of where the Law School

should go since this is tied to a decision on what is going

to happen to the Medical School. He referred to an agree-

ment which he said was reached when the Medical School was

approved by the Legislature that the Law School would go to

Las Vegas. He stated that, in his opinion, the Law School

would be an important addition to the University and should

go to the Campus not having the Medical School. Mr. Foley

suggested that there would have to be some intense effort to

reduce costs as much as possible since he did not believe

the Legislature would fund a project of the size envisioned,

and suggested that some alternatives be considered, such as

a tie-in with an existing accredited school. He suggested

that the appropriate sequence would be to determine the

question of location, explore the possibility of a tie-in

with another school, get the first year started, and then

approach the people who would contribute to its continued

financial support.



Judge Hug commented on the quality of the CMP report, which

he agreed was excellent, and suggested that the real value

of the report was not in the conclusions reached but in the

framework it provides for further analysis and discussion,

pointing out that all of the considerations which should be

made are included.



Judge Hug stated that he supports a Law School for Nevada,

believes the State can afford it, but cautioned that it

would be a mistake to proceed without legislative support.

He agreed with Mr. Foley that the Law School should be in

Las Vegas, adding that he did not believe it would be ad-

visable to even consider moving the Medical School since the

physical facilities are in Reno, many of which have been

constructed from funds provided for that specific purpose,

and the faculty and staff have been recruited to Reno. Al-

though it would be nice to have a Law School associated with

the Judicial College, it would also be very beneficial to

Las Vegas to have access to a law library which would be the

center for legal education, including continuing education,

as is provided by the Judicial College in the northern part

of the State.



Judge Hug pointed out that it cannot be proved, in present-

ing a request to the Legislature, that there is a critical

need for a Law School since qualified students are getting

into schools elsewhere. However, the cost to Nevada stu-

dents is greater and the State is not providing a complete

educational opportunity at a reasonable cost to citizens.



Establishment of a Law School must be a matter of priority

and must be viewed in context with the other needs for

education. It cannot interfere with ongoing programs of the

University and should not interfere or compete with other

legitimate demands for State resources. However, he urged

that the planning for a Law School proceed.



Ms. Frankie Sue Del Papa concurred in the comments by Judge

Beko that a Law School must be viewed within the context of

a professional school Master Plan and urged that this plan-

ning process be completed. She stated that she personally

did not feel that State support is available at this time

and agreed with the conclusions in the report that Nevada

is not ready for a Law School at this time, but supported

the recommendation that planning be initiated. She also

recommended that the University look closely at the alter-

natives, particularly at a subsidy program based on need

as well as merit.



Judge Addeliar Guy commented on the projected growth of the

State, and suggested that at some point it must be decided

that there will be a Law School. He urged that a priority

be placed on the establishment of a Law School and that

planning be initiated. He expressed his belief that a State

University must serve the needs of the people and that the

Board of Regents must accept the responsibility to provide

leadership in the educational field and must convince the

Legislature of the necessity of providing legal education to

the students of Nevada.



Mr. Weisbart commented on the need expressed in the study

for immediate action with regard to State subsidies. He

suggested that this is critical at this point and should

receive some attention in the next legislative session.



Mr. David Cowells, a resident of Las Vegas, spoke concerning

his support of a Law School from his perspective as a stu-

dent commuting to the San Fernando College of Law.



President Goodall stated that he agreed with the comments

concerning the importance of keeping a balanced system of

higher education, and believed that the distribution of

graduate and professional schools is extremely important.

Dr. Goodall suggested that not enough emphasis had been

placed on the potential demand of part-time students who

will never go out of the State for their education, adding

that the report overstated the difficulties involved in

creating a school that can respond to that kind of need.



Dr. Goodall also suggested that the report overstated the

difficulties in creating a Law School, adding that even

though he does not advocate a private school, he believed

there would be an effort in the next five years to establish

a private school in Nevada if one were not established as

part of the University.



President Goodall recommended that:



(1) The Board reaffirm its position that Nevada ought to

have a Law School at an appropriate time;



(2) That it be located with the concept of balance high in

terms of the priorities that have been set; and



(3) That the Board be cognizant of the fact that there will

be an effort to create a private Law School in Nevada,

and be ready to respond to it when it comes.



Mr. Cashell thanked the Committee for their efforts on be-

half of the Law School Study and the guidance and consulta-

tion freely and effectively provided to the management firm

conducting the study.



Mr. Cashell then recommended that: (1) the University in-

itiate planning for a Law School, agreeing that the appro-

priate location appeared to be Las Vegas; (2) that the de-

velopment of a Master Plan be commenced immediately; and,

(3) that the Board of Regents undertake the development of

a proposal to the Legislature for expansion of a student

subsidy program, either through WICHE or outside of that

program, to alleviate the cost of students going outside

the State for professional graduate education.



In response to a question concerning the subsidy program,

Judge Beko stated that in his opinion, any additional money

provided by the Legislature ought to go into a subsidy

program rather than WICHE, since the report has indicated

that it is more costly with the WICHE program than a more

direct subsidy program. Judge Beko also stated that it was

the Committee's opinion that an effort should be made to

provide this subsidy program immediately, so that assistance

can be provided while the planning for a Law School is

proceeding.



In response to a further question concerning the Committee's

recommendations, Judge Beko confirmed that a Master Plan was

considered essential to further planning. In summary, he

said, as a first priority, a subsidy program should be

established, with the second priority being the development

of a Master Plan for professional schools.



Mr. Buchanan moved that the members of the Law School Com-

mittee be invited to continue as an Advisory Committee to

the University in the planning for a Law School. Motion

seconded by Mr. Mc Bride, carried without dissent.



Mr. Ross moved that the Law School Study be accepted. Mo-

tion seconded by Mr. Mc Bride, carried without dissent.



35. Master Plan for Professional Schools



As indicated in the agenda, at the time the Board directed

that the 1975 Law School be updated, it also directed the

development of a Master Plan for Professional Schools. Pro-

posals were requested from three firms: Booz, Allan and

Hamilton, Arthur D. Little Company, and Cresap, Mc Cormick

and Paget, Inc. Proposals were received from the latter

two firms and copies were made available to the Regents.



Mr. Buchanan suggested that consideration be given to re-

locating the Medical School to Las Vegas if Washoe Medical

Center does not give the University some type of commitment

to support the School. If a decision is made to relocate

the Medical School, a consequence of that decision would be

to locate the Law School at UNR. He suggested that prior to

preparing a feasibility study for professional schools, the

question of the location of the Medical School be resolved.



Mr. Cashell stated that it appeared that the relationship

between the Medical School and Washoe Medical Center is ap-

proaching resolution. He urged that the development of the

Master Plan proceed and consideration of the Law School and

location of the Medical School occur within that context.



Chancellor Baepler referred to the proposals received for

the Master Plan for Professional Schools and recommended

that, if the Board determined to proceed, the firm of

Cresap, Mc Cormick and Paget, Inc. be retained. However,

he pointed out that the study would look at several high

cost programs, such as Dentistry, Veterinary Science and

Optometry -- programs with a limited appeal in terms of

number of students who apply, in relation to a Law School

or an Architectural School. If, as the study just com-

pleted indicates, the State is not ready for a Law School,

it is clear that these high-cost professional schools are

many years in the future. When professional programs are

considered, it is obvious that the Board would choose to go

with a Law School and an Architectural School, both of which

are less expensive and have broad student appeal, and he did

not believe, therefore, that it was worth spending $60,000

to have someone tell the University what it already knows.

Furthermore, he stated, there are people within the Univer-

sity System who can develop a priority list and a recommend-

ation for locations.



Mr. Mc Bride disagreed, pointing out that no decisions can

be made about priorities or locations if the University has

not developed justification for a program on which a deci-

sion for priority or location is necessary. He urged that

a Master Plan be developed in an organized fashion, sug-

gesting that long-range planning cannot be done in a piece-

meal fashion. Mrs. Whitley agreed.



Dr. Crowley expressed concern that preparation of a Master

Plan for professional schools by an outside consultant, at

the same time an internal long-range academic Master Plan is

underway by each of the institutions, would create two dif-

ferent sets of priorities. He suggested that perhaps it

would be more appropriate to incorporate the professional

schools study into the present effort which is being done

internally. If there is a need to do survey work or collect

extensive data, the research centers at each of the Univer-

sities could then be utilized at a modest price. Then, in

the event outside consultants are required, consideration

could be given to their employment. He urged however, that

the study be done internally so that programs and schools

could be looked at together.



Chairman Cashell expressed concern that no apparent progress

had been made in the development of institutional Master

Plans even though the lack of such planning had been identi-

fied in January. He suggested that the Campuses and the

consultants work together for a complete study, including

the professional schools.



Dr. Baepler reported that a completion date for the Master

Plans had been set for December 1, noting that the institu-

tions have just completed their self-study for accredita-

tion and are, therefore, in a good position to proceed with

their academic planning.



Mr. Ross suggested that the Campuses be requested to submit

their Master Plans on or before December 1, and then perhaps

a professional consulting firm could be employed to address

the feasibility of those plans.



Mr. Cashell pointed out that somewhere along the line these

institutional Master Plans need to be brought together or

they would not be beneficial to the University System as a

whole. At this point, he suggested, it is difficult to see

how an integrated Master Plan will be possible without some

overall coordination.



Chancellor Baepler stated that in the past decade it has

been difficult to get the Campuses to plan constructively

when, almost without exception, every proposed new program

has failed to be funded.



Chairman Cashell suggested that requests for funding might

be more successful if they are supported by an integrated

Master Plan.



President Crowley stated that although he would not oppose

the Regents contracting with CMP, he believed there was a

great deal of expertise internally and that expertise should

be utilized by the Regents.



Mr. Cashell asked if the involvement of an outside consult-

ant would lend credibility to the planning process and per-

haps expedite the completion of the Master Plan.



Dr. Baepler responded by stating that having someone come in

to give the Board the sequence and location of professional

schools does not mesh with the planning process.



Mr. Buchanan agreed, stating that the institutions are will-

ing to bring their Master Plans to the Board and it is the

Board's responsibility to merge those Master Plans into one

System Plan. He further stated that he did not see any ur-

gency to development of a Master Plan since no new profes-

sional schools have been budgeted for the next biennium.



Mr. Cashell expressed his unwillingness to proceed with

planning for a Law School, even though he supported the

establishment of one within the University, until it can

be evaluated within the context of a full Master Plan.



Mr. Buchanan again argued that a Master Plan is not warrant-

ed at this time, rather, it should wait until each of the

institutions presents its Master Plan, suggesting that the

Board would then have the next two years to review those

before proceeding further. Mr. Buchanan also suggested that

if Question 6 passes, any master planning done will have to

be drastically altered.



Mr. Mc Bride reported that he has not been able to confirm

that anyone has yet started on his Master Plan. He also

recalled that one of the big criticisms in the accreditation

reports was directed to the lack of long-range academic

Master Plans. He also expressed concern that there was

apparently no coordination from the System toward the

completion of the Master Plans.



Mr. Cashell agreed, suggesting that employment of an outside

firm might provide the necessary impetus. Mr. Cashell fur-

ther suggested that CMP work with the institutions in the

development of their Campus Master Plans, and then proceed

to the next step of development of the professional schools

Master Plan as an integral part of the total plan for the

System.



Mr. Buchanan objected, stating that if the Regents wish to

have the Master Plans for each of the institutions assessed,

someone should be retained who has expertise in the matter.

He also objected to the expense of having an outside agency

look at every institution.



Mr. Cashell suggested that if the institutions themselves

cannot proceed with the development of Master Plans, then

some other means must be found to do the job, including the

expenditure of funds.



Mr. Ross moved that the institutions continue with their

internal planning, that the Chairman be authorized to nego-

tiate with CMP for a broader-based Master Plan review to

include all phases, and that the Regents get a report con-

cerning this negotiation at the next meeting. Motion sec-

onded by Mrs. Whitley.



Mr. Buchanan commented that by asking for outside help it

appears that the Regents are saying that their Administra-

tors are not capable of developing a Master Plan for their

institutions and that they need outside help to do it. He

stated that he disagreed, suggesting that they be asked to

proceed, then if they cannot do the job, look for outside

help and possible new Administrators.



Chancellor Baepler stated that each institution must com-

plete its own Master Plan, that Plan must then be compared

with the other institutions', and after any problems which

surface are worked out, the collective institutional plans

must then be merged into a System Plan.



Mr. Buchanan agreed, stating that it was at that point that

the Regents would evaluate it, and if they do not then agree

with the Plan they should look for outside help.



Mr. Ross defended his motion, suggesting that it offered the

compromise of asking Administrators to proceed with their

individual plans, after which outside help may be obtained.



Mr. Cashell asked how far along each of the Master Plans

were.



President Murino reported that the DRI plan is expected to

be completed by the end of the Summer. If the December tar-

get date is not timely enough for the Board, and the Regents

were to so indicate, the Presidents could take steps to ac-

celerate the process. He suggested that the institutions be

allowed to complete their plans, integrate them and if there

are deficiencies at that point, a consulting firm would be

appropriate.



Mr. Cashell again expressed concern that no progress has

been made to comply with the Board's request.



Dr. Baepler pointed out that it is not uncommon for an in-

stitution to take two or three years, with involvement of

faculty and Deans, to develop something as critical as an

Academic Master Plan, suggesting that if it does not take a

substantial amount of time and personnel, you do not have an

effective plan.



Dr. Crowley stated that there has been no progress for

several reasons: the recruitment and appointment of an

Academic Vice President, and the completion of the reor-

ganization. He also stated that he believed nothing had

been done because the sense of urgency expressed by the

Board had not, until now, been adequately communicated.



Mr. Cashell pointed out that six months of the time allowed

had already passed, and that what was projected to be ac-

complished in a year will now have to be done in six months.

He requested that the planning proceed and that progress re-

ports be provided at the next meeting, and that no new pro-

grams should be approved for any institution until the

Master Plans are complete.



Mr. Buchanan moved that this item be tabled until the

August 19 meeting, at which time each institution would

present a progress report on its Academic Master Plan and

a timetable for completion with a draft by December and a

final copy by June, 1981.



Mr. Cashell objected to waiting until June, 1981, stating

that he believed it important that this be completed prior

to the Legislative Session. He requested the target date

for completion remain at December, and that an initial prog-

ress report be filed at the August 29 Board meeting, with

monthly progress reports thereafter.



Mr. Buchanan accepted the amendment. Motion seconded by Dr.

Lombardi, carried without dissent.



The meeting adjourned at 11:45 A.M.



Bonnie M. Smotony

Secretary of the Board

06-27-1980