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