UCCSN Board of Regents' Meeting Minutes
July 30-31, 1990


Pages 1-13



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

in enrollment.

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

the Board.

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

Klaich opposed.

Vice Chancellor Sparks indicated that the Presidents had

agreed to place the equalization funds in Priority 2: Im-

proving Instruction.

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.

Motion carried.

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,

1990 meeting.

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

improvement list.

The meeting adjourned at 3:05 P.M.

Mary Lou Moser

Secretary of the Board