UCCSN Board of Regents' Meeting Minutes
July 15-16, 1993


Pages 112-116

                         BOARD OF REGENTS


                          July 15, 1993

The Board of Regents met on July 15, 1993 in the Conference Room,

System Administration Office, 2601 Enterprise Road, Reno for a

special meeting.

Members present:  Dr. James Eardley, Chairman

                  Mrs. Shelley Berkley

                  Dr. Jill Derby

                  Mr. Joseph M. Foley

                  Mrs. Dorothy S. Gallagher

                  Mr. Madison Graves, II

                  Dr. Lonnie Hammargren

                  Mr. Daniel J. Klaich

                  Mrs. Nancy Price

                  Mrs. Carolyn M. Sparks

Members absent:   Mrs. June F. Whitley

Others present:   Interim Chancellor John A. Richardson

                  President Joseph Crowley, UNR

                  President John Gwaltney, TMCC

                  President Paul Meacham, CCSN

                  Dr. Bill Bonaudi, NNCC

                  Mr. Bill Davies, WNCC

                  Mr. Dale Schulke, DRI

                  Mr. Ron Sparks, Vice Chairman

                  Mrs. Karen Steinberg, Acting Vice Chancellor

                  Mr. Donald Klasic, General Counsel

                  Ms. Mary Lou Moser, Secretary

Also present were Faculty Senate Chairmen Alan Balboni (CCSN),

Chris Gaub (Unit), Dan Mc Clure (TMCC), Mark Melrose (WNCC), and

John Swetnam (UNLV).

Chairman Eardley called the special meeting of the Board of Re-

gents to order at 1:00 P.M. on July 15, 1993 with all Regents

present except Mrs. Whitley and Mrs. Gallagher.

 1.  Discussion of Role of Chancellor

     Chairman Eardley asked each Regent to list qualities for the

     role of a Chancellor.  Mrs. Price stated she felt it was

     necessary to know and understand the role of the Board of

     Regents as well, and expressed a desire for that process to

     be conducted simultaneously.  In addition, she felt the

     Internal Auditors and the Secretary of the Board should

     report directly to the Board.

     Dr. Derby stated that the Chancellor should be the educa-

     tional leader and CEO of the System, and be the professional

     arm of the Board and provide expertise and guidance.  As a

     team builder the Chancellor should work with the Regents,

     institutions, outside constituencies, and be the key to

     communication within the System.  The Chancellor should pro-

     vide the educational vision and be a respected spokesman for

     the System.  He/she must exercise leadership in working with

     staff to see that internal operations run smoothly.  He/she

     must be a creative thinker.

     Mr. Klaich added that he/she must be able to relate well

     with outside constituencies.  He disagreed with the term

     "CEO" in that it denotes a business model and does not re-

     flect the way the System operates.  Mr. Klaich stated the

     Chancellor has to be an extension of the Board, but also

     must lead the Presidents by persuasion, stature and respect.

     Mrs. Sparks added that this position must not be an "office

     manager type", but a CEO to the System staff, an executive

     leader, a community liaison, and have a strong academic

     background in order to move in the educational environment.

     Mr. Klaich added that while the Board would be recruiting

     for a person for Nevada, there are ramifications beyond

     Nevada to be considered.

     Mr. Graves stated he liked the term "CEO"; that the Chancel-

     lor is the System leader.  He stated he did agree with the

     Organizational Review (May 1993 - on file in the Regents'

     Office) and referred to pages 5 and 6 of that report which

     lists the thoughts of those interviewed for that study.

     Mr. Graves stated he felt strongly the position requires

     previous system experience in order to bring in new ideas.

     He acknowledged that a drawback to choosing a person from

     outside the State would be in not knowing the State of

     Nevada.  He agreed that the person needs a Ph. D.; and, he

     did agree with the organizational chart as presented.

     Mr. Foley cautioned that no one should expect the education-

     al system to be the same once the State and nation recover

     from the current economic recession.  He added that the

     people are looking through traditions and at saving tax-

     payer dollars.  He related that the Presidents are articu-

     late and creative and the Board and Chancellor's office

     have been standing in the way of all process; that they

     should respond to ideas which are presented.  He continued

     that the Chief Administrative Officer must not be frighten-

     ed of new ideas and faculty traditions; he/she does not

     have to be an academician, but must be a community and

     state political leader.  He added that choosing the next

     Chancellor will be the most important task the Board has

     and it must be done carefully.

     Mrs. Berkley stated this selection would be a legacy from

     this Board for the System to move into the 21st century.

     The Chancellor must be an educational leader in a political

     environment; must be sensitive to individual institutions'

     needs at the same time realizing this is a System; must be

     an experienced academician; and that the person must come

     from outside the State in order to show Nevada's academic

     credibility to that outside world.

     Interim Chancellor Richardson asked to clear some of the

     misunderstandings of the Organizational Review.  He and

     Mr. Doug Burris, Director of Community College Affairs,

     were asked by the Board to conduct a review and interview

     Regents, Presidents and top Officers on the Chancellor's

     staff and to apprise the Board of how the System should

     move forward.  The Organizational Review (May 1993) is a

     compilation of those interviews.  They also were asked to

     report publicly so that other groups could react.  During

     the study, they reviewed former governance studies and

     the UCCSN Code, as well as other documents.

     The current UCCSN Code 1.4.2 states that the Chancellor is

     the CEO of the System; when a vacancy exists the Board is

     to seek the best professional leader as the CEO of the

     System; and the President is the Chief Administrative Of-

     ficer of the institution, reports to the Chancellor, and

     is accountable to the Chancellor and to the Board.

     Interim Chancellor Richardson stated that he, personally,

     believes personal qualities are the important factor when

     hiring a person, and more so than minimal qualifications.

     He urged the Board to assess the current System, determine

     the direction it should take, and hire that that situation.

     Mr. Burris agreed, adding that this System is unique in

     that all public higher education in the State is governed

     by one Board.  He suggested that the Chancellor should be

     knowledgeable in both Community Colleges and Universities

     in order not to lose any of the progress that has been made.

Mrs. Gallagher entered the meeting.

     Mrs. Berkley indicated she would like the Chancellor to

     communicate with individual Board members to provide back-

     ground information to them on the pros and cons of issues

     and the short- and long- term ramifications of issues.

     Mrs. Price stated she felt the Chancellor should live in

     the Las Vegas area, but that the Chancellor's office should

     remain in Reno.  Dr. Derby disagreed and felt the Chancellor

     needs to be with his/her staff, although she did agree there

     needed to be more of a presence in the South.

     Mr. Klaich commented that there is a communication issue

     to consider and he would appreciate having the Chancellor

     ask Board members for their opinions on issues.

     Mrs. Gallagher stated she felt a change was needed, that

     the new Chancellor should not bring "System baggage", but

     that the person should be an educational visionary.  She

     reminded the Board that communication is a two-way experi-

     ence, and if members did not feel they had enough informa-

     tion, they should be calling the Chancellor or staff.  She

     added that the Chancellor should have an academic background

     and be a "people person", and be able to listen, look at

     the facts, make a decision and move on to the next item.

     She cautioned that the Board must support the Chancellor

     in his/her decisions.

     Chairman Eardley asked that Interim Chancellor Richardson

     and Secretary Moser prepare a list of qualifications based

     upon this discussion and submit it for Board consideration

     by the September meeting.  After that is finalized by the

     Board, the Search Committee will begin its deliberations.

     UNLV Faculty Senate Chairman John Swetnam stated he object-

     ed to two areas of the Organizational Report and he felt:

     1)  Board members are elected from an area and are not

     Statewide Regents, and 2)  that Board members should not

     have to advise the Chancellor when lobbied by special in-

     terest groups.  Mrs. Gallagher explained that although

     Regents are elected by area, once elected, they are State-

     wide Regents.  Dr. Derby also explained that it is neces-

     sary to keep the Chancellor informed.

     WNCC Faculty Senate Chairman Mark Melrose suggested the fol-

     lowing for consideration:  1)  the term "earned doctorate"

     in space of a specific degree; 2)  Community College ex-

     perience is desirable; and 3)  the person should tolerate

     and encourage diversity within the System.

     President Gwaltney questioned whether the recommendations

     contained in the Organizational Review might be implemented

     in stages.

     President Crowley stressed that the personal qualifications

     are very important, and hoped the Board would look for

     someone who will fit into the System.  Mr. Bill Davies,

     WNCC, agreed, and added that the person should be able to

     build a positive relationship with the Presidents, and

     should believe in "process".  Dr. Bonaudi, NNCC, offered

     that the person should have a positive attitude toward

     teaching, and should be someone who doesn't have all the


 2.  Upheld the Findings and Sanctions Imposed on Employee Appeal

     Under Section 6.14.2 of the UCCSN Code, Robert Norris, a

     University of Nevada, Reno employee, had appealed a deci-

     sion of President Joseph Crowley to terminate Mr. Norris'

     employment for cause after a hearing held in accordance

     with the procedures of Chapter 6 of the UCCSN Code.  The

     Board was advised that upon consideration of the appeal,

     they could:  (1)  dismiss the charges made against Mr.

     Norris; (2)  affirm the charges; (3)  impose a lesser sanc-

     tion on him; or (4)  order a new hearing.

     Upon motion by Mr. Klaich, seconded by Mrs. Sparks, the

     Board moved to a closed session for the purposes of dis-

     cussion of the character, alledged misconduct, professional

     competence or physical or mental health of an employee(s)

     of the UCCSN and/or private persons.  Mr. Foley and Dr.

     Hammargren voted no.  Motion carried.

The Board recessed the meeting at 3:05 P.M. for a closed session,

and reconvened at 5:03 P.M. with Regents Berkley, Derby, Eardley,

Gallagher, Klaich, Price and Sparks present.  Also present were

Interim Chancellor Richardson, General Counsel Klasic, Assistant

General Counsel David Hintzman, President Joseph Crowley, Mr.

Robert Norris, Mr. Paul Schofield and Secretary Moser.

     Mrs. Gallagher moved that the Board of Regents affirm the

     findings of the Hearing Officer and the sanctions that have

     been imposed on Mr. Robert Norris.  Dr. Derby seconded.

     Motion carried.  Mrs. Price voted no.

The meeting adjourned at 5:07 P.M.

                             Mary Lou Moser

                             Secretary of the Board