July 30-31, 1990
BOARD OF REGENTS
UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA SYSTEM
July 30, 1990
The Board of Regents met on the above date in the Pine Auditor-
ium, Jot Travis Student Union, University of Nevada, Reno.
Members present: Mrs. Dorothy S. Gallagher, Chairman
Mrs. Shelley Berkley
Dr. Jill Derby
Dr. James Eardley
Mr. Joseph M. Foley
Dr. Lonnie Hammargren
Mr. Daniel J. Klaich
Mrs. Carolyn M. Sparks
Mrs. June F. Whitley
Others present: Chancellor Mark H Dawson
President Anthony Calabro, WNCC
President Joseph Crowley, UNR
President John Gwaltney, TMCC
President Robert Maxson, UNLV
President Paul Meacham, CCCC
President Ronald Remington, NNCC
President James Taranik, DRI
Mr. Donald Klasic, General Counsel
Dr. Warren Fox, Vice Chancellor
Mr. Ron Sparks, Vice Chancellor
Ms. Mary Lou Moser, Secretary
Also present were Faculty Senate Chairman Richard Brown (UNR),
Isabelle Emerson (UNLV), Paula Funkhouser (TMCC), Louis Grandieri
(Unit), Michael Mc Farlane (NNCC), Steve Mizell (DRI).
Chairman Dorothy Gallagher called the meeting to order at 8:10
A.M., Monday, July 30, 1990.
1. Approved the Consent Agenda
Approved the Consent Agenda (identified as Ref. A, filed
with the permanent minutes) containing the following:
(1) Approved the following interlocal agreements:
A. UNS Board of Regents/UNR and State Department of
Education (interlocal contract)
Effective: August 6, 1990 to June 30, 1991
Amount : $3,120 to UNR
Purpose : UNR to provide tuition waivers for 30
students of "Special Problems in Edu-
cation" class, conducted under direc-
tion of Dr. Neal Ferguson, Division
of Continuing Education.
B. UNS Board of Regents/UNLV and State Job Training
Office (interlocal contract)
Effective: September 1, 1990 to August 31, 1991
Amount : $27,445 to UNLV
Purpose : UNLV to conduct research monitoring
progress of former JTPA participants.
Dr. Eardley moved adoption of the Consent Agenda, and ap-
proval of the prepared agenda with the authority to change
the order of items as specified throughout the meeting.
Dr. Derby seconded. Motion carried.
Chairman Gallagher relinquished gavel to Regent James Eardley,
Chairman of the Budget and Finance Committee, which sat as a
Committee of the Whole.
2. Budget and Finance Committee
The Budget and Finance Committee, meeting as a Committee of
the Whole under the Chairmanship of Regent Eardley, acted as
Vice Chancellor Sparks presented a draft of the UNS 1991-93
Biennial Budget Request which consists of a Base Budget and
Priority Requests for New Funding.
The Base Budget extends the current year (FY 91) operating
budget into the next biennium with adjustments for projected
student enrollment increases, requests to fund previously
approved budget formulas, and adjustments for past legisla-
tive actions, inflation and selected special adjustments.
Priority Requests for New Funding will strengthen existing
programs, provide funds for new initiatives and new program
development, provide salary increses for UNS professionals,
and strengthen management and computing systems.
A total of 225.5 new faculty are requested in the Base Bud-
get along with 53 additional classified support staff di-
rectly tied to instruction. Funds to improve forumulas rec-
ommended to the 1987 Nevada State Legislature by an interim
legislative committee which studied how Nevada funds higher
education also are included in the Base Budget request.
These formulas are designed to shore up the infrastructure
of UNS institutions by providing a stable, dependable budget
addressing basic needs.
Student enrollment is projected to increase by approximately
13% over the biennium. UNS exceeded budgeted enrollments in
1989-90 and therefore, fiscal 1991 enrollments have been re-
projected as well.
Included in the Base Budget is an increase in non-resident
tuition from the current level of $1650 per semester to
$1800 per semester to become effective Fall, 1991 and to
$1950 effective Fall, 1992. Resident fees for University
students are increased by $3 per credit ($2 to be retained
in the operating budget and $1 outside) effective Fall,
1991, and $2 per credit ($1.25 to be inside the operating
budget and $.75 outside) effective Fall, 1992. Graduate
fees are increased by $6 per credit ($4 to be inside the
operating budget and $2 outside) effective Fall, 1991, and
by $7 per credit ($4.50 to be inside the operating budget
and $2.50 outside) effective Fall, 1992.
For the Community Colleges, resident fees are increased by
$2 per credit ($1.50 to be inside the operating budget and
$.50 outside) effective Fall, 1991, and by $1 per credit
($.75 to be inside the operating budget and $.25 outside)
effective Fall, 1992.
These increases are intended to help fund the new formulas
for added support services, Libraries, equipment and Gradu-
ate Assistants as well as costs associated with increases
The Base Budget requested for fiscal 1991-92 increases by
26.2% over 1990-91 and by an additional 9.5% for fiscal
1992-93. The total Priority Requests for New Funding is
$89.6 million. Summary schedules of the biennial budget
requests are outlined in the draft of the UNS 1991-93
Biennial Budget Request, which was distributed at the meet-
ing and is filed in the Regents' Office.
Mr. Foley distributed a questionnaire which was compiled by
the UNLV Alumni Association. The questionnaire is filed in
the Regents' Office.
Vice Chancellor Sparks stated that the Base Budget provides
funds necessary to maintain existing programs. Due to the
enrollment growth projections, approximately $13 million
will be requested to maintain the budget the first year of
the biennium. The parameters set by the Board of Regents
are as follows:
1. Full funding of the formulas adopted in 1986 by the
Legislative Committee Studying Funding of Higher Educa-
tion. To provide full funding of these formulas it will
cost about $22.2 million for the first year of the bien-
nium. These formulas include the following:
a. Support services formulas for academic support,
student services, institutional support and opera-
tion and maintenance of facilities.
b. Improved full-time/part-time instructional ratios
at the Community Colleges to provide the four in-
stitutions with more full-time faculty. Currently
the ratio is 60% full-time, 40% part-time. UNS
seeks the ratio enjoyed nationally, 70%/30%, to
provide a more stable workforce.
c. A Graduate Assistant formula for UNR and UNLV to
increase Graduate Assistant salaries and to create
addition Graduate Assistant positions.
d. Library book acquisition formulas based upon the
number of programs offered, number of faculty and
number of students.
e. An annual equipment replacement formula based upon
equipment inventories and price indexes.
2. A 5% cost-of-living increase for all professional em-
ployees for each year of the biennium is included in
professional salaries, and will cost approximately $5.6
million the first year of the biennium.
3. Teaching Assistants, Letters of Appointment, wages and
departmental operating costs have been increased by 5%
per year to provide for anticipated cost-of-living
increases, and will cost approximately $2 million for
the first year of the biennium.
4. A 3% merit pool for all professional employees is in-
cluded in professional salaries, and will cost $1.1
million for the additional 1% being added the first
year of the biennium.
5. Funds to maintain equipment purchased with "one-shot"
appropriations and Estate Tax funding as provided by
the 1989 Legislature are included at 6% of the acquisi-
tion costs, and will cost $500,000.
6. Special provisions addressing unique situations are
incorporated, such as utility rate increases, increased
utility usage, expected increases in insurance costs,
increased rent, postage, and mandatory federal regula-
tions for the handicapped. This will cost about $4.5
million the first year of the biennium.
7. Grants-in-aid have been adjusted for fee increases and
Graduate Assistants, and will cost approximately $3.3
million for the first year of the biennium.
8. State funding to continue the EPSCoR Program for the
second year of the biennium is included in the Special
Projects budget. The State will be asked to increase
funding by $519,612.
9. Operating funds have been added for new facilities
scheduled to come on line during the next biennium,
and will cost approximately $600,000.
All of these numbers are estimated costs for the first year
of the biennium and subject to adjustments when the base
budget is finalized.
The primary components of the formulas are the student/
faculty ratios and student enrollment projections for each
Campus. The tables in the budget document display current
ratios, enrollment projections, and the supporting formulas
used to construct the budget. Vice Chancellor Sparks indi-
cated that the Base Budget increase in 1992 is $52.8 mil-
lion, and will increase by $23.4 million in 1993.
Mr. Foley requested a response to a more equitable distri-
bution for UNLV which was posed by the UNLV Alumni Associa-
tion questionnaire. Vice Chancellor Sparks stated that full
funding of the formulas will resolve most of the differences
and directed Mr. Foley to pages 27 and 53 which address the
budget for scholarship funding. Scholarship funding has
been equalized within this budget request. Pages 102, 104
and 105 address partial funding for instructional operating
increases where the budget request will allow the Campuses
to achieve 1/2 of equalization during the next biennium with
full equalization by the following biennium. Vice Chancel-
lor Sparks explained that the budget request was built to
include this equalization over two bienniums and, in fact,
the funding recommended for UNLV would have taken them more
than 1/2 towards equalization during the next biennium (ap-
proximately $70 below UNR).
There was a lengthy discussion in regard to equalization of
salaries for new faculty, and Vice Chancellor Sparks indi-
cated that the budget request reflects the agreement that
new faculty would be budgeted at the current year's average
budgeted salary for existing faculty. UNR's average faculty
is approximately $47,000 and UNLV's approximately $45,000.
Vice Chancellor Sparks felt very strongly that salaries may
be over budgeted in this request and suggested that we avoid
over budgeting in Instruction so that funds might be allo-
cated to other critical areas. He stated that there has al-
ready been a request for transfer of funding from that in-
structional operating budget to other sources such as aca-
demic support and instructional support which might indicate
an excess in the current budget in instruction.
Dr. Eardley stated that both UNR and UNLV were competing to
hire new faculty. The established formula determines how
many new faculty are to be allotted to each Campus by the
number of students. He stated that new hires for the last
year were budgeted at an equal salary level between the two
Campuses. He questioned why there was a difference in this
budget request, and Vice Chancellor Sparks indicated that
UNLV over budgeted the salaries in the past, therefore, the
Campuses agreed to use the current year's average budgeted
salary for existing faculty. President Maxson explained
that UNLV could have hired all full professors which would
have increased the average salary, but being conservative
had hired some instructors. He explained that local in-
structors are hired to fill positions and that UNLV can
hire three junior professors to one full professor. He
requested that new faculty positions be funded at the same
level between the Universities and that the Community Col-
leges have the same equity level between their institutions.
Mrs. Gallagher stated that she was very concerned about the
integrity of the Base Budget. The University of Nevada
System has agreed with the Governor's Office and the Legis-
lature to guard and preserve the approved parameters of the
Base Budget which enables the Legislature to understand and
accept the budget request at each legislative session. The
Base Budget must maintain consistency at each legislative
session. She stated that if the Base Budget did now follow
the established guidelines, then it would be subject to a
line-item review by the Legislature. The Base Budget, as it
is presented at this time, is not difficult to defend and
the Legislature does not question the Base Budget too often,
because of the guidelines that have been set. UNS needs to
lobby other priorities during the legislative session, and
to present the Base Budget with little change in its struc-
Mr. Foley stated that he did not feel it was the responsi-
bility of the Chancellor's staff to meet with the Governor
and the Legislative Counsel Bureau to discuss the UNS bud-
get requests. He stated he felt that a change in this
process is needed, however, other Regents did not agree
with this viewpoint.
Vice Chancellor proceeded to review the individual Campus
budget requests and answered various questions presented by
Dr. Hammargren entered the meeting.
Mr. Foley moved approval for partial equalization of the
instructional operating budget and that the differences on
each Campus be reduced by 1/2 and moved into the Base
Budget. Mrs. Sparks seconded. Regents Gallagher and
Vice Chancellor Sparks indicated that the Presidents had
agreed to place the equalization funds in Priority 2: Im-
Mr. Klaich stated that the guidelines of the Base Budget
have already been stretched by including the cost of living
increase. He emphasized that UNS must be very candid when
presenting the budget to the Governor and Legislature.
President Crowley stated each Campus had backed out certain
priority requests in order to keep the budget creditable.
He questioned if the Campuses could now include the removed
priority requests into the budget, with the Board indicating
no further changes should be made.
Mr. Foley moved approval of the salaries for new faculty to
be comparable for both Universities and for the four Commu-
nity Colleges. Mrs. Sparks seconded. Motion carried.
Vice Chancellor Sparks reviewed the Priority Requests for
New Funding. UNS requests new funding which is grouped into
four categories: requests for new initiatives and new pro-
gram development, requests for improving instruction, pro-
fessional salary and compensation requests, and requests for
improvement of management and computing system. The re-
quests have been prioritized as follows:
Priority No. 1: Professional Compensation and Part-Time
Community College Faculty Salary Increase
Priority No. 1 contains the UNS request for increases in
salary and compensation for faculty and Administrators.
Results of the latest salary surveys indicate that UNS has
fallen further behind in its goals to be among the insti-
tutions within the top quartile of the 51 principal land-
grant Universities. In fiscal 1988, the average salary
level for UNR faculty was 10.7% below the top quartile
while UNLV faculty salaries were 14.2% below. The fiscal
1990 survey indicates that UNR is now 13.4% below the top
quartile, and UNLV is 14.6% below. The UNS Community
Colleges in fiscal 1988 were 15.2% below the top quartile
of the 47 medium-enrollment urban Community Colleges survey-
ed. The fiscal 1990 survey now shows them to be 21.1%
The proposal contained in this priority calls for UNS to
pick up 5% of the employees' current 10% contribution to
their retirement system in the first year of the next
biennium and the additional 5% the second year. By the
end of the biennium UNS professional employees would have
100% of their retirement contributions paid by the State
as is the case with other State employees and public school
Additionally, this priority provides for increasing the
part-time faculty salary allocation at the Community Col-
leges to the same level at all institutions and increasing
the allocation to $18,375 in fiscal 1992 and to $19,294
in fiscal 1993.
Dr. Derby moved approval to increase allocation of part-time
salaries to be equalized to the full-time salary level and
accomplish this over the next two biennium. Mrs. Whitley
Mrs. Gallagher and Mr. Klaich felt that if this is approved
then the Legislature would have to be re-educated on the
definition of part-time faculty, which are an intricate
part of the System. There is a difference between staffing
ratio and the funding ratio. The Legislature may be con-
fused on this issue and may think that UNS is deleting the
part-time faculty, which is not true. This perception
problem must be addressed. Mr. Klaich stated that he was
sympathetic to the funding needs of the Community Colleges
but this is a serious distortion of funding formulas which
are being discussed at the last moment of the budgeting
Dr. Derby stated that her intentions are to place the part-
time salaries at the same level as they were prior to 1975.
She felt that as it is now, UNS is doing a disservice in
underpaying part-time faculty.
President Crowley stated that this change will cost several
million and is changing the priority budget. The Campuses
have backed out some of their own priorities to keep in line
with the Board's parameters. He requested that the Campuses
be allowed to come forth with their other priorities for
reconsideration. His request was denied.
Motion carried. Regents Gallagher and Klaich opposed.
It was clarified for Vice Chancellor Sparks that this change
would occur in Priority 1, not the Base Budget. Vice Chan-
cellor Sparks proceeded with the review of the priorities.
Priority No. 2: Improving Instruction
This priority contains UNS requests for improving instruc-
tion. Included in this request are changes in student/
faculty ratios, request for instruction and research equip-
ment, faculty travel and development funds, scholarships
for disadvantaged students, additional instructional oper-
ating support for faculty, and the addition of teaching
assistants at WNCC.
Except for instruction and research equipment, the largest
single request in this priority is for changes in the stu-
dent/faculty ratios. The budget request outlines the cur-
rent ratios along with the proposed changes on page 99.
Priority No. 3: Improving Management and Computing Systems
Included in Priority No. 3 are the Campuses administrative
and academic computing requests, the UNS request to estab-
lish a Southern Regional Data Center and to complete the
Management Information System, funding for the Community
Colleges Business and Industry, and Mining Technology pro-
grams, science and technology funds for DRI and some addi-
tional facilities planning staff for the Chancellor's
The request to establish the Southern Regional Data Center
and to complete the Management Information System allows for
UNS to continue efforts to enter into a mainstream computer
environment and to provide modern hardware and software for
administrative and academic computing needs. The Campus
computing requests contain funding for both academic and
administrative computing activities.
Priority No. 4: New Initiatives and Support Programs
Contained in Priority No. 4 is a request to spend $5 million
over the biennium in estate tax funds for program develop-
ment. Currently there are virtually no funds available for
the Campuses and DRI to use in developing programs. Use of
the estate tax funds for this purpose would comply with the
intent that estate tax funding be used to enhance and devel-
op programs in higher education.
Funding is also requested in this priority for State match-
ing of a new experimental program to stimulate competitive
research (EPSCoR). This competitive grant is currently
being reviewed by the National Science Foundation and will
require State matching if UNS succeeds in its application.
Provision is made in this priority for the expansion of the
University Press publications program and the establishment
of a Southern Nevada Office for the Press. Other programs
requested include land acquisition for the two Universities
and research projects for DRI.
Mr. Foley moved approval to consider any other budget re-
quests and encouraged all Presidents to submit requests for
needs. Mrs. Berkley seconded.
Clarification was made that the 1991-93 Biennial Budget Re-
quest must be presented to the Governor's Office on Septem-
ber 1, 1990 and that the next meeting of the Board of Re-
gents is scheduled for August 30-31, 1990. It is too late
to make substantial changes to the budget request. Faculty
members are involved in this process and it would be diffi-
cult to gather information from them during the Summer. It
was suggested that the budget be approved today.
Mrs. Berkley withdrew her second. Motion died for lack of
The open meeting recessed at 12:50 P.M. and reconvened in a
Close Personnel Session at 1:00 P.M., Monday, July 30, 1990,
with all Regents present.
3. Personnel Session
Upon motion by Mr. Klaich, seconded by Mrs. Whitley, the
Board moved to a closed personnel session for the purpose
of discussing the character, alleged misconduct, profes-
sional competence or physical or mental health of a person
in accordance with NRS 241.030.
Upon motion by Mrs. Whitley, seconded by Mrs. Sparks, the
Board moved to open session. Motion carried.
The open meeting reconvened at 2:10 P.M., Monday, July 30, 1990,
with all Regents present, except Regent Hammargren.
4. Report of the Investment Committee
The Investment Committee met in Reno on July 11, 1990 to
review the Evaluation Committee's report on the three bids
received in response to an RFP for UNS Custodial Banking
Services. The Investment Committee had forwarded for Board
consideration a recommendation to award the bid for UNS
Custodial Banking Services to Security Pacific Bank.
Mr. Klaich commended Secretary Moser for the thorough and
descriptive set of minutes she prepared for the July 11,
Mr. Klaich moved approval to award the bid for UNS Custo-
dial Banking to Security Pacific Bank. Dr. Eardley second-
ed. Mrs. Gallagher abstained due to conflict of interest.
Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Foley stated that he felt that the evaluation process
on custodial banking should be made by the Board of Regents
and that the Chancellor' staff should be available for an-
swering questions and explaining the day-to-day process.
He requested that the evaluation process be discussed by the
full Board, and Mrs. Gallagher assured him that this would
be a topic of a future Regents' Workshop.
5. Report on Law School, UNLV
President Maxson introduced Dr. John Unrue, UNLV Provost
and Vice President for Academic Affairs, who is working
with the Advisory Committee for a Proposed Law School at
UNLV. Dr. Unrue stated that a consultant, Dr. Steve Smith,
Dean of Law at Cleveland University, has been hired and is
finalizing a feasibility study on the need for a Law School
in the State of Nevada. Dr. Smith has worked closely with
the Center for Business and Economic Research at UNLV and
has stated that there is a sufficient demand for a Law
School in Nevada at this time.
Dr. Hammargren entered the meeting.
Recommendations from Dr. Smith include a high quality school
criteria be established with strong faculty members, re-
search records, publications, high standards of students, a
library containing 250,000-300,000 volumes, which would
cost approximately $2.5-3 million, faculty salary be placed
above the national average, financial aid for students, and
a quaranteed low student/faculty ratio.
Dr. Smith has related that it will be an expensive program
and that the greatest initial cost will be the 130,000 net
square foot building, which he estimated at $15-18 million.
Dr. Smith has also estimated $5-6 million would be needed to
operate the school on an annual basis. Private funding will
be necessary, but UNLV must have a dependable base funding
from the State Legislature.
Dr. Unrue stated that UNLV is aware of the UNS budget proc-
ess and does not want to violate the process. On behalf
of the Committee, he requested $750,000 from the Legislature
to be granted for architectural planning.
Dr. Eardley questioned whether money had been allocated in
the priority for capital improvements, and Dr. Unrue stated
that at this time it had not.
Mr. Klaich felt that the request was not being processed in
the correct fashion in that the Law School Program has been
pre-supposed prior to the building request. Dr. Unrue
stated that the Committee was being presumptuous, but has
received approval of the Advisory Committee to develop plans
for the Law School. Mr. Klaich stated that he had received
the last report on a proposed Law School which indicated
there was not a need for a Law School in Nevada. He re-
quested a survey and report be compiled similar to the
study chaired by Mr. William Beko.
Upon questioning, it was concluded that a discussion of a
proposed Law School has not come before the Council of
Presidents. President Maxson stated that the Advisory Com-
mity was approved by the Board of Regents, therefore the
Committee took it upon themselves to hire a consultant and
will be receiving his report soon.
Mr. Foley, member of the Advisory Committee, stated that a
feasibility study was being prepared and will be presented
to the Board of Regents at the August meeting. He stated
that there should be some consideration to approach the
upcoming Legislature for funding.
Mrs. Berkley stated that she was uncomfortable in approving
the request for $750,000 for planning purposes without a
feasibility study to review.
Chairman Gallagher stated for the record that there is some
urgency for this discussion, in that if approved, the bud-
get would have to be altered prior to the September 1 dead-
line in which the budget must be presented to the Governor.
Vice Chancellor Sparks indicated that an amendment to the
budget could be requested after the budget is submitted to
the Governor and emphasized that this request would not
require a change in the priorities.
President Maxson stated that the feasibility study will be
sent to the members of the Board of Regents prior to the
August meeting, therefore Board consideration can be given
to the proposed Law School and be placed on the capital
The meeting adjourned at 3:05 P.M.
Mary Lou Moser
Secretary of the Board