UCCSN Board of Regents' Meeting Minutes
August 10-11, 1992


Pages 46-59



August 10, 1992

The Board of Regents met on the above date in the Computing

Services video conference room at the University of Nevada,

Reno and the University of Nevada, Las Vegas for a special video


Members present: Las Vegas: Mrs. Carolyn M. Sparks, Chairman

Mrs. Shelley Berkley

Mr. Joseph M. Foley

Dr. Lonnie Hammargren

Mrs. June F. Whitley

Reno: Dr. Jill Derby

Dr. James Eardley

Mr. Daniel J. Klaich

Elko: Mrs. Dorothy S. Gallagher (via


Others present: Chancellor Mark H Dawson

President Joseph Crowley, UNR

Mr. Donald Klasic, General Counsel

Mr. Ron Sparks, Vice Chancellor

Dr. John Richardson, Vice Chancellor

Ms. Mary Lou Moser, Secretary

Also present was Unit Senate Chairman Diane Dietrich.

Chairman Sparks called the meeting to order at 10:10 A.M. Monday,

August 10, 1992.

1. Review of Nevada State Press Association Law Suit

Chairman Sparks stated that General Counsel Klasic had pro-

vided the Board with a written update on the law suit. Dr.

Hammargren informed the Board that just prior to this meet-

ing he had prepared a page of questions he would like an-

swered, and requested the discussion on this item be delayed

until that page could be sent by facsimile to Reno and Elko

so that the Board members would have the information before

them during the discussion.

2. New Business

A. Regents

Dr. Hammargren announced that he had information for the

Board concerning the land acquisition in Clark County

of approximately 118 acres of BLM land near the airport.

He stated that the party who was suing Clark County for

the land did not file an appeal with the U. S. Supreme

Court and that UCCSN could now pursue the purchase from

the County. Chairman Sparks referred to a letter re-

ceived from the Clark County Commission, dated July 9,

1992, in which they state the County still has plans to

develop a golf course on this property.

General Counsel Klasic cautioned that this matter was

not posted for this meeting, but will be on the agenda

for the August 27-28, 1992 meeting.

B. Mr. William Shields introduced himself, stating he was

a candidate for Regent Berkley's district.

C. Mrs. Gallagher asked that an item be placed on a future

agenda for the Regents to consider a policy concerning

payment of private attorneys. Mr. Klaich stated that

there is an existing statute which would have to be


3. Review of Nevada State Press Association Law Suit/Request

for Funding

Copies of Dr. Hammargren's fax were distributed to those

present, filed as Ref. A with the permanent minutes. Mr.

Foley asked whether Dr. Hammargren wanted something more

than the written update from General Counsel.

Mr. Klaich stated that at least Questions No. 1 through 4

did not have anything to do with the noticed agenda, and to

act would be a clear violation of the Open Meeting Law to

have discussion on or to take action on at this time. Ques-

tion No. 5 concerned being allowed to listen to the tape of

the January 9, 1992 personnel session. General Counsel

Klasic stated that he had been in contact with Dr. Hammar-

gren's counsel on that matter, and the difficulty with al-

lowing anyone to listen to the tape was the necessity to

preserve the integrity of the tape inasmuch as the Court

has requested it be presented at a hearing on August 19,

1992. Dr. Hammargren's counsel stated that the same reasons

for not discussing Questions No. 1 through 4 would apply to

No. 5, but also that it would be his recommendation that no

action be taken to listen to that tape, that in order to

preserve the integrity and the chain of custody, the tape

be turned over to the Judge, who will listen to it, and make

a decision. Further, these questions are the ultimate is-

sues of law which are the subject of the law suit.

Mr. Foley called for a comment by General Counsel on Ques-

tion No. 6, "If General Counsel Klasic is counsel for the

Board of Regents, I demand that he furnish me with all cor-

respondence regarding this law suit which he has refused to

date." General Counsel Klasic stated that part of the prob-

lem is that Dr. Hammargren is fully aware of what has hap-

pened in this matter, that:

Not only has he received previously all of the corre-

spondence, and all of the documents which General

Counsel Klasic has had in this case up to July 22, 1992,

but he was present at the hearing on July 22, 1992 and

he knows exactly what the status of the case is.

The case has not gone any further from that which hap-

pened on July 22, 1992.

Essentially, the law suit was filed in March, 1992.

General Counsel Klasic filed a Motion for Summary Judge-

ment and an answer in April, 1992. Briefs were filed.

A hearing was scheduled for July 22, 1992. The Judge

decided to postpone the matter because she wanted to

listen to the tape. During the July 22, 1992 meeting,

she entertained an action by Dr. Hammargren which

he requested that General Counsel Klasic make, that

General Counsel Klasic withdraw as his counsel so that

he could get his own attorney, which she approved.

There was a request by the attorney for the Nevada State

Press Association to talk with Dr. Hammargren about this

case. General Counsel Klasic objected on the basis of

privilege. The Judge ordered Dr. Hammargren not to

talk to the attorney, pending the outcome of that motion

and that will be briefed. On August 19, 1992, the tape

will be delivered to the Court, and presumably General

Counsel Klasic will argue his motion on the privilege.

After August 19, 1992 and the Judge has had an opportu-

nity to listen to the tape, there will be another hear-

ing, but no date has been scheduled yet. At that time,

there will be a hearing on the motion.

On the issue of correspondence, General Counsel Klasic

informed the Board that Dr. Hammargren is not "being

kept in the dark"; that he certainly got full corre-

spondence prior to the time he got his own attorney; he

was present at the hearing in July. There is nothing

new since that time.

Mr. Klaich stated that he felt the Board was wasting a great

deal of time and wanted the meeting over as quickly as pos-

sible. He stated that Dr. Hammargren's first four questions

are insulting to every member of the Board and appear to be

nothing more than a calculated attempt to embarrass the

Board. He continued that with respect to Question No. 5,

he felt that General Counsel's suggestion of giving the tape

to the Judge is absolutely appropriate and the Judge should

deal with the tape in whatever manner she suggests. As far

as correspondence coming from General Counsel, he felt that

any member of the Board could have any of the correspondence

he/she wants. He stated that he was getting tired of the

sniping going on between Dr. Hammargren and General Counsel

Klasic, and the claim that everything that Dr. Hammargren

doesn't like being General Counsel Klasic's fault. He stat-

ed he does not feel this has anything to do with the Nevada

State Press Association law suit. He added that if Dr.

Hammargren has a problem with how General Counsel Klasic is

handling his job, then Dr. Hammargren should request the

Chairman of the Board to call a personnel session on General

Counsel Klasic to look into his competency; that it was the

only fair thing to do for General Counsel Klasic and the

only fair thing for Dr. Hammargren to do. Mr. Klaich stated

that he was getting bored with Dr. Hammargren's trying to be

an attorney as well as a Regent.

Chairman Sparks stated that in this matter Dr. Hammargren is

the most informed of anyone on the Board since he was actu-

ally present at the court hearing. She added that the Board

has done its best to satisfy his request for information,

and all his various requests, of which there have been many.

She stated she was not certain what was hoped to be satis-

fied by this meeting.

Chairman Sparks stated that there was a great deal of cor-

respondence from another attorney of Dr. Hammargren, Mr.

Alan Jones, and that she failed to see there was anything

left undone at this point.

Dr. Hammargren stated that the first thing he would like to

know is the Board's position in relation to the particular

issues involved. He stated the purpose was not to embar-

rass but was to "bring out in the open" the type of things

he felt the Board should be talking about. Chairman Sparks

asked him to be specific.

Dr. Hammargren stated that he would like to know whether the

Board of Regents is going to make their decisions in public

or in private, which is a very, very fundamental decision,

and specifically how they vote as to whether they should

have personnel sessions on themselves. That was the purpose

of the meeting, not embarrassment, but to make a better plan

for the future. Dr. Hammargren stated that he did not call

for the personnel session (January 9, 1992); people objected

to the personnel session going in; that he obeyed the rules

of the personnel session and that the only thing he said was

that "yes, it was a personnel session on me". He added

that other people didn't necessarily do that, but he kept

obeying the rules until he kept reading in the newspaper

about the law suits in which he was discussed. He stated

that he felt it was inconsistent to have an emergency item

introduced at the last Regents' meeting to protect against

a "flash article in the newspaper" when there are consistent

law suits that have not been brought to the Board, and the

issues have not been talked about by the Board, and they

are settled by either one or two people behind closed doors.

Mr. Foley stated that he did not feel anything was being

accomplished with these "wild accusations" from Dr. Hammar-

gren. He added that he felt about 80% of the Board's time

since Dr. Hammargren has been a member has been his demands,

and almost a command, that the Board devote all its time to

his business. He stated that so long as Dr. Hammargren

continues, he will continue to "holler" about it.

Mr. Foley moved that the Board deny the request by Dr.

Hammargren in Item 2 for attorney fees to be paid to his

special counsel, at his selection, in the law suit. Mr.

Klaich seconded.

Mrs. Berkley asked that the Board hear Dr. Hammargren's

comments, that he obviously was frustrated and unhappy

with the procedures of this Board.

Mr. Foley stated that he had to leave the meeting but would

like to be notified when the vote would be taken.

Chairman Sparks stated she felt the Board has "bent over

backwards" to be fair to Dr. Hammargren; they had listened;

they had read "reams of paper"; there has not been anything

new or different presented in the last two months.

Dr. Hammargren continued that the intent was not to embar-

rass, unless the Board is embarrassed by the non-public way

it does business. Chairman Sparks objected to Dr. Hammar-

gren's accusation that the Board does business in a non-

public way. Dr. Hammargren stated that the waste of time

in this meeting was, in his mind, to try to discuss these

issues as a Board of Regents, and to come up with a deci-

sion, and instead, the first thing that was said was that

the Board could not talk about this, because it hadn't

been noticed specifically. He stated that the first four

questions were the "heart" issues of the Nevada State Press

Association law suit, which was noticed. He stated that he

found it strange that the Board could not discuss them, and

suggested that those items could be noticed again in detail.

He stated that he felt the Board was making a travesty of

the Open Meeting Law by demanding every little detail and

discussion be noticed.

Chairman Sparks stated that it was a law suit and details

should not be discussed, but the suit was reviewed. Dr.

Hammargren said that it was not a question of a review of

the past, that he was trying to make something constructive

of it, and that is, what is the position of the individual

Regents -- they can't meet privately and discuss this issue;

they can't meet publically and discuss this issue.

Mr. Klaich suggested that the Attorney General of the State

of Nevada, and the court system of the State of Nevada, are

charged with enforcing, interpreting the Open Meeting Law,

and that was not the job of the Board of Regents. He added

that was not making a mockery of the statute; it's not doing

anything, it is just saying it is the Board's job to take

care of higher education in the State of Nevada, or is it

the Board's job to interpret the Open Meeting Law? Mr.

Klaich related that the Attorney General has already ex-

pressed her opinion on most, if not all, of these questions.

If a District Judge in Clark County disagrees with that in-

terpretation, then that will be another interpretation of

the law.

Dr. Hammargren stated that helped him put into perspective

his thoughts, because he was the one who has been embar-

rassed, not the Board of Regents, in relation to this. He

agreed that it was not the Board's job to interpret State

law except as to how it does business every day, and he

felt every day that he is trying to learn how to do the

business, the rules change. He gave as an example, this

meeting in which the Chairman stated Dr. Hammargren could

review the January 9, 1992 tape, but Counsel said that he

could not.

Mr. Klaich declared Dr. Hammargren's comments was a mis-

statement because Counsel had not informed the Chairman of

his conversation with Mr. Dickerson (Dr. Hammargren's at-

torney); General Counsel corrected the Chairman as soon as

the statement was made and she stated that she was mistaken.

Mr. Klaich suggested that if Dr. Hammargren had a difference

with Mr. Dickerson, then the Board should hear about that,

but that he should not state that the rules had been changed

because that is not what happened. Chairman Sparks inter-

jected that Dr. Hammargren did know, through his attorney,

that he could not listen to the tape. Dr. Hammargren stated

that he did not know that.

Dr. Hammargren referred to some information which purported-

ly was sent to the Regents, that the Chairman and the Chan-

cellor had both told him about the information, but that he

was not privileged to the information, and that other Re-

gents were prevented from giving him that information in

relation to what the law suit at the present time was about.

He declared that communication was still withheld from him,

and so therefore there was misinformation that has purposely

been withheld.

Chairman Sparks, speaking to Dr. Hammargren, stated that he

has chosen to separate himself from the individual members

of the Board by seeking his own counsel. She stated that

the Board had not forced him to do this nor did they recom-

mend it. She stated that the Board is a 9-person elected

Board of Regents whose job is to oversee the policy and

budget making of the UCCSN. She added that Mr. Foley is

correct when he stated the Board has spent 80% of its time

in this last year dealing with items which have no interest

or concern to the other institutions in this System; it has

had to take an extreme amount of personal time and meeting

time to deal with subjects that simply are not pertinent

to this Board. She stated she felt the Board had given him

every courtesy, had made every attempt to provide him with

time in a forum to conduct his business, and he has chosen

to separate himself from the other members of this Board,

and that is not anything that the Board members feel they

have to deal with him personally. She stated she would

not feel the Board had to pay for any of its members' elec-

tions campaigns. She continued that if Dr. Hammargren

chooses to take a position separately from the individual

members of the Board, it is following the statutes of the

State of Nevada, the Code of UCCSN, it goes by the rules

established by the Board, and if he does not like those

rules, the Board can see about changing them. However, she

added, that the Board cannot constantly disrupt every action

it takes by something that Dr. Hammargren knows full well

going into the meeting the answer to every one of his ques-

tions. She stated that they have been discussed in full

detail and he did know where the Board stands on the items

and yet he persists in making a public spectacle of all

the members.

Dr. Hammargren questioned where the Board stands on any one

of the items, and asked for justification for that action.

Mr. Foley stated that it was done through discussion, and

suggested that Dr. Hammargren put his questions on the

agenda. Dr. Hammargren stated that Mr. Foley always inter-

rupts when he is talking, but that he remembers a famous

interruption Mr. Foley had made, because Mr. Foley had not

been present for the January personnel session, and when

served with the law suit, Mr. Foley had declared he was

going to sue because he was not a party to the session.

Dr. Hammargren asked why Mr. Foley was so upset with a law

suit in which he was not involved. Mr. Foley replied that

it wasn't the law suit that was upsetting him.

Mrs. Gallagher asked whether Dr. Hammargren's attorney was

present, with the answer being that he was not. Mrs.

Gallagher stated she felt the attorney would be delighted

with Dr. Hammargren being his own attorney after he had

retained an attorney. Dr. Hammargren replied that he was

not trying to be an attorney in the law suit, and added

that he was certain the attorney would "reprimand" him,

just as Mrs. Gallagher had suggested.

Dr. Hammargren stated that he was trying to get at the is-

sues of how the Board does business, which is what "people"

were trying to ignore.

Mrs. Gallagher stated she was highly offended with this

discussion because she did not feel that the Board does

business behind closed doors, and that she is offended

when Dr. Hammargren accuses the Board without any facts

that it is doing business behind closed doors. She added

that she feels he often times feel that because of his own

inattention. She stated she resented the manner in which

he is portraying this matter because he is "pointing fin-

gers" with "absolutely nothing" to support it.

Dr. Hammargren asked where was the deliberation of the

position of the Board of Regents on this issue.

Chairman Sparks asked for a clarification of the item 2 re-

quest since it appears that Dr. Hammargren has more than

one attorney. She asked if the request was for all at-

torneys and referred to the letter from Mr. Alan Jones.

Dr. Hammargren stated he was requesting only for this

situation and that is payment for Mr. Dickerson, and stated

he had asked the Secretary to change the notice to that

effect. He added that this request was only to do with

this particuar personnel item as a decision of can a

person have a different opinion? and added that "we all"

may have different personal opinions, but the Board does

have a collective decision. He stated that he would "go

along" with collective problems of the Board, but that is

not what led to this law suit, and the Board's own at-

torney, in writing, has said that he would not represent

Dr. Hammargren; would not present any opinion, even though

Counsel is representing Dr. Hammargren as an individual

and as the Board, and, therefore, Dr. Hammargren was abid-

ing by State law that allows that if there is a conflict,

a public official may have a representative of a different


Chairman Sparks again asked for a clarification, that

General Counsel Klasic has not said he would not represent

Dr. Hammargren; that Dr. Hammargren had made the request to

not be represented by General Counsel Klasic. General

Counsel Klasic answered Chairman Sparks' question that he

had not stated he would not represent Dr. Hammargren, that

Dr. Hammargren was referring to an affidavit he wanted

General Counsel to submit to the court which was entirely

contrary to the legal position this Board has taken, and

General Counsel Klasic told Dr. Hammargren that he just

did not believe he could do that. General Counsel Klasic

denied that he had at any time said he would not represent

Mr. Hammargren.

Mr. Klaich made an analogy between questions asked of an

attorney and of a neurosurgeon. He stated the answers, in

his opinion, would depend on the circumstances of actions

of a particular case at a particular time, but if the

questions were asked in a vacuum, the answers would or

might be different.

Dr. Derby stated she felt there was an important issue

around the motion on the floor, and that has to do with

how the Board does business under the circumstances of

facing a law suit that pertains particularly to the behavior

of the Board of Regents. She continued that if there is a

division of opinion on how the law suit should be perceived,

she asked how the Board should deal with it.

Mrs. Berkley stated she tended to agree with Dr. Derby that

the Board does need to make a determination, and that her

opinion was that majority rules. She stated that her ques-

tion has to do with procedure, and when she was practicing

law her clients told her the position they wished the at-

torney to take, and she followed through with their wishes.

She added that she was not certain the Board did business

in that manner when it pertained to law suits that were

significant to them as a Board. She stated that it seemed

to her that General Counsel takes the lead in these matters

and the Board does not have the opportunity as a full Board

to come to an understanding as to what the Board's position

will be before it enlists the services of its attorney. She

stated she understood it was somewhat different when the

Board has an in-house attorney than when a client goes to

an attorney, but she felt the Board was lax, and that so

long as the Board was the client that it would make a deter-

mination as to what it wishes their attorney to present as

its position in a law suit and then the attorney carries

out its wishes. Mrs. Berkley stated that in this particu-

lar case, and it is indicative that all of the cases that

the Board is involved in, she did not recall, as a Board,

ever sitting down and having a frank and open discussion

about this law suit, and reaching a consensus, no matter

what the consensus is, of how to instruct the Board's at-

torney to go forward with the law suits. She stated she

felt that was the way the Board should do business. She

stated that what the Board generally tends to do is that

its counsel goes forward and then advises the Board members

of the progress. She stated she felt that was backwards.

Mrs. Whitley stated that in General Counsel Klasic's defense

there had been many occasions when he had called her and

asked her position on cases, and most of them were person-

nel cases, they discussed the cases and she gave her opinion

as a Regent, and that General Counsel Klasic would discuss

what some of the other Regents' positions were on the par-

ticular case. She stated that when it comes to hiring an

attorney outside the realm of General Counsel Klasic's

office, she did not agree with that. She continued, that

if, however, in a particular case, and this one might fall

into the realm of her statement, that there is a personnel

problem that General Counsel Klasic may not have the ex-

pertise for, or any other kind of problem, that she did not

see why this Board could not allow him to go outside the

office and hire a lawyer who does have that expertise. But,

she added, that it should be for the whole Board to decide,

not for an individual.

General Counsel Klasic stated that he felt Mrs. Berkley

had confused "apples and oranges" in this instance. He

explained that in most of the cases, the "slip and fall"

cases, the Board just does not get involved. He stated

that in other cases where something comes up and he does

not know what the Board plans to do for the future, he does

go to the Board every single time, because he does not know

what the Board position will be. He gave the example of the

NCAA vs. Miller case, in which he brought it forth to the

Board, the Board made a decision, and he acted accordingly.

Another example was one that happened a number of years ago

where the question was whether the System would back up a

couple of employees in the UNR College of Agriculture who

had problems with the Public Employees Retirement System.

That matter was brought to the Board and permission was

given to enter into the law suit on their behalf. He stated

that was the "apples".

General Counsel Klasic continued that this particular case

is the "oranges", because this is a situation where the

Board already took a decision. Its decision was to have a

closed meeting concerning one of its officers; the meeting

was held and the Board was sued over it. General Counsel

Klasic stated that the only thing he could have done was to

come to the Board and ask whether it wanted him to confess

judgment, or did it want to plead guilty? Obviously, he

stated, the Board did not want to do that or it would not

have had the meeting in the first place. General Counsel

Klasic stated that he filed a defense in behalf of the

Board. He declared that was standard operating procedure

for in-house counsel, and during the course of this law

suit, as things came up, he stated he has kept the Board


Chairman Sparks stated that the general procedure in the

8 years she has been receiving law suits, that when she

is served with anything, she immediately calls General

Counsel Klasic and gets the details. She added that it

is very seldom that Board members are served individually

on these suits.

Mrs. Berkley stated that with all due respect, not all Board

members were advised of that closed personnel session and

there were a number of Regents who walked into the closed

personnel session without knowing what it was all about,

and she felt that was a deliberate effort to keep some of

the members uninformed of what was to transpire. Mrs.

Whitley stated she was not aware, either, and when she

walked into the session she asked another Regent what the

session was about. Chairman Sparks explained that the

purpose of that meeting was to deal with a request by an

employee who had a problem. General Counsel Klasic stated

that the matter should not be discussed because the matter

is under litigation at this point.

General Counsel Klasic stated in response to some of the

comments he had just heard that while it may even be true

that some didn't know until that moment, a motion was made,

a second was made, there was discussion in open meeting as

to what the purpose of that meeting was going to be about,

and there was a vote taken. Those who objected could have

voted "no". The vote was unanimous in favor of going into

that meeting.

Chairman Sparks stated that it just happened that one Regent

happened to be the focus point, the intent of that meeting

was not to discuss any Regent, it was to have a meeting.

One Regent happened to have been the one involved in all of

this. Mrs. Whitley asked whether when the vote was taken

the question had been asked who the person was, or whether

there had been just a broad statement as is the usual man-

ner? General Counsel Klasic stated the individual was dis-

cussed in open session; that Dr. Hammargren was mentioned

in open session during the discussion of the motion.

Dr. Derby asked why Dr. Hammargren feels that it would be

appropriate for the Regents to pay for his special counsel.

Mrs. Gallagher stated that if the Board did pay for individ-

ual counsel for individual members, it would open up a con-

dition that the Board could not handle. The Board has been

through horrendous attorney fees the last year or two be-

cause it has been representing everybody on both sides of

the question insofar as paying for the attorneys. She

stated this would be setting a very poor precedent if the

Board volunteered to pay for any Regent's outside counsel

when it retains an office with competent attorneys to do as

the Board requests them. She emphasized that she would be

very opposed to setting that kind of precedence.

Dr. Hammargren stated he had not prepared a statement other

than that included in the memorandum previously mentioned.

He continued that in accordance with NRS 41.034, which

states: "Special counsel paid by the State may be employed

on behalf of a public officer when it has been determined

to be impractical, ... constitute a conflict of interest to

provide the usual defense." He stated that he felt it was

"crystal clear" by General Counsel Klasic's own word, "I do

not believe that submitting this affidavit would be in the

best interests of the remaining defendants in this case,

whom I also represent." (General Counsel Klasic's memo of

July, 1992.) He continued that General Counsel Klasic had

written there was a conflict of interest; he made some other

suggestions on the affidavit that were objections, so Dr.

Hammargren had them re-done according to General Counsel

Klasic's form, and then asked him again in court if he would

present them to the Judge and he refused, for the second

time. He continued that, therefore, the real issue is that

there is a conflict of interest and Nevada law covers that

very well. He added that the Board of Regents' position

may be different from him, and as an elected official,

everybody has that right to counsel.

Dr. Hammargren stated there was also another minor point

because ... it was an ambush, not by a concerted act of the

Board of Regents, but it was an ambush by a few people on

the Board, and that is, some people are notified ahead of

time, and they boycotted the meeting. He stated that Mr.

Foley left because he didn't believe in the personnel ses-

sion. Other people objected to the personnel session right

in the beginning; they then agreed to go along with it. Dr.

Hammargren continued that he happened to make the motion be-

cause he was advised that it was legal and he was "sort of

brash and impulsive" and not afraid of such a session. He

stated that he did not cause this action; that it was the

Board of Regents' action that caused this. And, he continu-

ed, it was also secretive action by select members of the

Board of Regents. And, so therefore, Dr. Hammargren stated,

that he felt he had the right as a "personnel", if he is a

"personnel", which the Board is trying to accuse him of be-

ing, then he asked for the rights of a personnel.

Dr. Derby asked that General Counsel Klasic comment on Dr.

Hammargren's comments. General Counsel Klasic stated he

did not think there was a conflict; Dr. Hammargren was sued

as a defendant; all members of the Board were sued as de-

fendants. The position he took, General Counsel Klasic

said, was consistent with that of defendants. He continued

that Dr. Hammargren attempted to file an affidavit which

took the position of the plaintiff, and that certainly is

not consistent with the position of the defendants. He

explained that if Dr. Hammargren wishes to go on the side

of the plaintiff, he can do that, that is his choice, but

the law doesn't say that the Board pays for someone to sue

them, the law states that the Board pays for a defense.

General Counsel Klasic stated that Dr. Hammargren has chosen

voluntarily to take that position.

Chairman Sparks repeated the motion, item number 2, whether

or not to pay Dr. Hammargren's private, individual law suit.

Dr. Hammargren corrected that, stating that it was to pay

his individual law suit as a Regent.

Mr. Foley related that the motion was that the Board not

pay for such special counsel. Chancellor Dawson asked

whether that pertained to the Legislative Commission inquiry

and the Grand Jury inquiry, or just the Nevada State Press

Association law suit? Mr. Foley stated that the motion was

to not pay for Dr. Hammargren's private counsel. Dr.

Hammargren stated he had not asked anyone to pay for his

private counsel, that he was asking the Board of Regents to

pay for the suit in which he had been sued as a Regent, not

as a private person. He continued that the motion has noth-

ing to do with what he asked for. Mr. Foley countered that

Dr. Hammargren is using private counsel, he is not using

the counsel the rest of the Board is using, which is the

counsel of the Board.

Mr. Klaich questioned Dr. Hammargren, stated that in a let-

ter of July 13, 1992 from Alan Jones to Chancellor Mark

Dawson, Alan Jones identified himself as Dr. Hammargren's

lawyer, and requested payment be made for the doctor's fees

in all these matters, the Legislative investigation, the

Grand Jury investigation and the Nevada State Press Associ-

ation litigation. General Counsel Klasic corrected that

Mr. Jones had asked for only two of those three. Mr. Klaich

asked whether the request of Dr. Hammargren was solely for

the Nevada State Press Association law suit? Dr. Hammargren

agreed in the affirmative. Mr. Foley stated that whatever

is on the agenda (Ref. B, filed with the permanent minutes)

in the nature of paying for Dr. Hammargren's counsel is a

motion to deny it. It was explained that a "yes" vote would

deny payment for Dr. Hammargren's outside counsel.

On a role call vote, the motion carried to deny payment for

Dr. Hammargren's outside counsel.

No : Regents Berkley, Hammargren

Aye: Regents Derby, Eardley, Foley, Gallagher, Klaich,

Whitley, Sparks

The meeting adjourned at 11:10 A.M.

Mary Lou Moser

Secretary of the Board